5th district illinois appellate court order

8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order

1/18

N

OT

iCE

Tb

tn

t

of

this

ofder

may be

h nged

or

n

pil

f

to

the

t

fo

r i

ng

o

—

—

etition

for henmnaor

l

b disposition

oi

2

0b IL

A

pp

t 1 0

277

U

NOTICE

th

urn

This order

was

filed

un r

NO. 5—

15-

0277

upreme

Court ule 23

and

may not

be c it ed

as

precedenl

n j ‘ T

r

by

any

party

except n

the

It’N

ilt

limited

circumstances

allowed

under

Rule

23 e 1 .

AP

PEL

LAT

E

COU

RT

O

F

ILL

INO

IS

FIF

TH DI

STR

ICT

AM

ERI

CAN

FED

ERA

TIO

N

O

F ST

ATE

C

OU

NTY

Inte

rloc

utor

y

Ap

peal f

rom

A

ND

M

UN

ICIP

AL

EM

PL

OYE

ES. CO

UNC

IL

31

.

the C

ircu

it

C

ourt

of the

IL

LIN

OIS

T

ROO

PE

RS

LO

DG

E

N

O.

41

.

Tw

entie

th Jud i

cial Circ

uit

FR

AT

ERN

AL

ORD

ER

O

F

POL

ICE

;

IL

LIN

OIS

St. C

lair C

oun

ty Illin

ois

NU

RSE

S ASS

OCI

ATI

ON:

I

LLIN

OIS

FE

DER

AT

ION

O

F PU

BLI

C

E

MP

LOY

EES

. LOC

AL 4

408

IFT-

AFT

:

IL

LINO

IS

FE

DER

ATI

ON OF

TEA

CIJE

RS. LO

CAL

919 ;

IN

TER

NAT

ION

AL

BR

OT

FIER

HO

OD

O

F

EL

ECT

RIC

AL

WO

RK

ERS

;

I

LLI

NOI

S

FR

ATE

RN

AL OR

DER

OF

POL

ICE

LA

BOR

J

UL

2

CO

UN

CIL;

L

AB

ORE

RS

INTE

RN

ATI

ONA

L

5

UNI

ON

O

F

N

ORT

H

AM

ERI

CA

ISEA LO

CAL

CL

ER

KA4

Flu

00

2002; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL

UN

ION

.

LO

CAL

7

3;

SE I

U H

EA

LTH C

ARE

IL

LIN

OIS

IND

IAN

A:

S

EIU LO

CA

L ;

T

EA

MST

ERS LOC

AL

UNI

ON

NO

.

70

5

AFF

ILIA

TED W

ITH

TH

E

I

NTE

RNA

TIO

NA

L

B

ROT

IIE

RHO

OD

O

F TE

AMS

TER

S;

a

nd

C

ON

SER

VAT

ION

PO

LIC

E LO

DG

E O

F THE

P

OLI

CE BE

NEV

OL

ENT AR

ID PR

OTE

CTI

VE

ASS

OC

IATI

ON

Plai

ntifis

Ap

pefle

es.

v.

N

o.

I5

CH

475

T

ilE

ST

ATE

O

F

I

LLIN

OIS and

LES

LIE GE

ISS

LER

M

UN

GE

R.

in

1

1cr O

fficia

l Ca

paci

ty

as

Com

ptro

ller

fo

r

th

e Sta

te of

Illi

no is.

ono r

ble

Ro

ber t

P.

Le

Chie

n

Det

ènda

nts

App

ellants.

Judge presiding.


2/18

JUS

TICE

CH

APM

AN

del

ivere

d

the

jud

gme

nt

of

th

e

cou

rt.

P

resid

ing

Just

ice

Ga t

es

and

Ju

stice

Go

lden

hers

h

co

ncu r

red

in

th

e

ju

dgm

ent.

OR

ER

H

eld

:

Tr

ial

cour

t h

ad

ju

risdi

ction

in su it

to

c

omp

el

St

ate o

ffici

als

to

is

sue

p

aych

ecks

to

Sta

te

em

ploy

ees .

A

ttorn

ey Gen

eral

had st

andi

ng to

bri

ng

ap

peal

o

n be

half

of

the S

tate

of I

llino

is

even

thou

gh

the

trial

co

urt

dism

isse

d

th

e

S

tate

as a

par

ty an

d

C

omp

trol

ler

did

n

ot

file

her

ow

n

a

ppe

al.

C

ourt

did

not

ab

use

i

ts

discr

etion

in

enter

ing

a

tem

pora

ry

res

train

ing

orde

r.

2

Th

e d

ispu

te

unde

rlyin

g

this

a

ppea

l in

volv

es

th

e

f

ailur

e o

f t

he

l

egisl

atur

e

an

d

G

over

no r

to

agre

e

to a

budg

et.

D

ue

to

the

impa

sse ,

no app

ropriations

bill

exists

allowing

mo

st

Sta

te emp

loye

es

to

be

p

aid .

Se

vera

l

unio

ns re

prese

ntin

g

Stat

e

work

ers

bro

ugh

t

t

his

a

ctio

n

se

ekin

g

d

eclar

ator

y

and

inj

unc t

ive

relie

f.

The

y r

eque

sted

t

hat

th

e

Sta

te

o

mpt

rolle

r be

dire

cted

to is

sue

wa

rrant

s

a

llow

ing

un

ion

mem

bers

t

o b

e

paid

.

The

om

ptro

ller

to

ok the

posi

tion

tha t

a

ll S

tate

emp

loyee

s

sh

ould

be

pa

id,

not ju

st me

mbe

rs

of

the

unions

involved

in

this litigation, bu t

she

stated that

she

w

oul

not issue the payroll

w

rr

nts

abse

nt a

cou

rt

ord

er

to

do so.

T

he

trial

cou

rt

en ter

ed

a

tem

po r

ary

res

train

ing

ord

er

T

RO

di

recti

ng th

e

Co

mptr

oller

to p

ay

all

Sta

te

emp

loye

es

at

the

ir reg

ular

r

ates

o

f

pay .

The

St

ate,

via

th

e

Atto

rney

Ge

nera

l

AG

,

appe

als

p

ursu

an t

to

Illi

no is

Su

prem

e

Co

ur t

R

ule 30

7 d

e

ff.

F

eb.

26,

2

010

.

The

A

G

arg u

es

that

1

th

e

tri

al cou

rt

lack

ed

ju

risdi

ction

und

er

the

Sta te

L

aws

ui t Im

mun

ity

A

ct

74

5

IL

CS

5/1

W

est 20

14 ;

2

the

c

our t

abu

sed

its

dis

cret

ion

i

n ru

ling

in this

m

atter a

fter

a

Coo

k C

oun t

y

c

ourt

enter

ed

a

conf

lictin

g

ord

er;

3

the

r

equi

rem e

nts

for

is

su in

g

a

T

RO

we

re no

t

me t; an

d

4

the

co

urt

com

mit

ted

r

ever

sible

e

rror

by a

llow

ing the

C

om

ptrol

ler to

be rep

resen

ted

by

a

ttorn

eys

other

than the AG. The

Comptroller

filed

an

em ergency motion

to

dism iss this appeal,


3/18

argu

ing

th

at

the

AG

lack

ed th

e

auth

ority

to

br

ing

thi

s

app

eal on

eh

lf o

f

the

C

omp

trolle

r

due

to

th

e

diffe

renc

es be t

wee

n

their

p

ositi

ons

i

n

this

m

aile

r.

We d

eny

t

he

Co

mpt

rolle

r’s

m

otio

n to

dis

mis

s. W

e

affir

m

the

TRO ; however we remand with

directions

to

set

a

h

earin

g

date th

at

w

ill

lim

it

the dura

tion

of

the

T

RO

.

3

The

20

16

fis

cal

ye

ar beg

an

in

Illino

is o

n

Jul

y

201

5. T

he

Gov

erno

r

ve

toed

a

udg

et p

asse

d

b

y

th

e

legis

latur

e

a

nd

as

o

f

tod

ay

th

ere

is stil

l no

St

ate bu

dge t

in

e

ffec

t

fo

r

the

20

16

fisca

l

y

ear.

As a

re

sul t

the r

e is

n

o

a

ppro

pria

tion

in

p

lace

to

a

utho

rize

the

p yment

of

salaries

to

most State employees. However S

tate

empl

oyee

s h

ave

been

dire

cted

to

re

port to

w

ork

and

the

y h

ave co

mpl

ied

w

ith thi

s

direc

tive

.

4

On

July

2 s

ever

al u

nion

s

rep

rese

nting

Stat

e em

ploy

ees

fil

ed t

he

com

pla

int

at

iss

ue

in th

e

circ

ui t co

urt

of

St

.

C

lair

Co

unty a

gain

st

t

he

Sta

te

of

I

llino

is and

t

he

Com

ptro

lle r

in

he r o

ffici

al

cap

aci t

y. Th

ey

alle

ged

that

unde

r thei

r

coll

ectiv

e

ba

rgain

ing

a

gree

men

ts an

d

ex t

ensi

on s

of

tho

se agre

em e

nts

th

e S

tate

is

requ

ired

to

pay

un

ion m

emb

ers

in

a

tim

ely

ma

nn er

.

Th

e

unio

ns

fur

the r

alle

ged

t

hat

“No

twith

stan

ding

th

e l

ack

of

bud

geta

ry

ap p

ropri

ation

s

the

Stat

e

h

as

suff

icien

t

h

inds to

co

ntin

ue t

o pay

St

ate e

mplo

yee

s

for

the

ir

w

ork.”

They

arg

ued

th

at

the

fail

ure to

appr

opri

ate

fund

s fo

r the

pay

men

t of

em

ploy

ee

salaries constituted

an

impa irment

of

the

State’s

contractual obligation

to

pay the union

me

mbe

rs. In

a

dd it

ion

t

hey

ar

gued

that

th

e

Per

sonn

el

Co

de

re

qui r

es

the

S

tate to

prov

ide

“f

air

and

r

easo

nabl

e

c

omp

ensa

tion

”

to

its e

mplo

yees

f

or th

e

serv

ices

the

y

prov

ide.

Se

e

20

I

LCS

41

5 8a

Wes

t

20

14 .

T

he un

ion s

re

ques

ted

a

d

ecla

ratio

n

tha

t

failu

re

to

pay

un io

n

mem

bers

t

heir fu

ll sa

larie

s

co

nstitu

tes an unco

ns ti

tutio

na l i

mpa

irme

nt

of

co

ntra

ct.

3


4/18

The

y f

irnhe

r req

ues

ted

prel

imin

ary

an

d p

erma

nen

t injun

ctio

ns d

irect

ing

the

C

omp

troll

er

t

o

iss

ue

pa

yche

cks to u

nion

m

emb

ers.

5

The

ma

iler be fo

re

u

s

is

complicated

by

the

fact

that the

AG filed

a

separate

d

ec la

rato

ry jud

gme

nt

actio

n in C

ook

Co

unty

, ra

ising

d

iffe

rent

issu

es

reg

ardi

ng

the

Stat

e’s

ob l

igati

on to pa

y

all

St

ate

emp

loye

es unti

l

a

new

budg

et

is in p

lace

.

Tha

t

a

ction

w

as

f

iled

on

Ju

ly

ap

prox

ima

tely

16

hou

rs

b

efor

e

the

uni

ons

filed

the

St

.

C

lair C

oun

ty

sui

t at

iss

ue

here

.

W

e

wi

ll

d

iscu

ss

the C

ook

Co

un ty

pr

ocee

ding

s

to

the

exte

nt

that

th

ey a

re

relevant

to the

qu estions

before

us.

1

6 I

n

t

he

Coo

k

C

oun

ty

actio

n, the

A

G so

ugh

t dec

larat

ory an

d in

junc

tive r

elief

aga

inst

th

e

Com

ptro

ller.

The

com

plai

nt

a

lleg

ed

th

at

“

An ac

tual

con

trove

rsy has

a

risen

in

light

of

subs

tanti

al unc

ertai

nty

rega

rdin

g

w

hich

,

if

an

y,

p

aym

ents m

ay

be

au

thor

ized b

y t

he

o

mpt

rolle

r in

the

ab

senc

e

of

annu

al app

rop r

iatio

n

sta tu

tes.”

The

AG

argu

ed

tha

t th

e

o

mpt

rolle

r

do

es no t

ha

ve au

thor

ity

to ap

prov

e

any

p

aym

ents

tha

t are

not

au

thor

ized by

an

app

rop

riatio

ns

bil l o

r o

ther

la

w.

Th

e

AG

ac

know

ledg

ed t

hat

eve

n

with

ou t

an

a

ppro

priat

ions

bi l

l, t

he

C

omp

troll

er is au

thor

ized

and

requ

ired

to pa

y the

sal

aries

of

leg

islat

ive

and j

udic

i l e

mpl

oyee

s an

d

to

m

ake

pay

men

ts

to

em

ploy

ees man

date

d

und

er

the federal Fair

Labor

Standa rds Act FLSA

29

U.S.C.

201 et

seq. .

In

pe rtinent

par t,

th

e F

LSA

man

date

s p

aym

ent

of

th

e fede

ral

min

imu

m

wage

an

d,

wh

ere

app l

icab

le,

ov e

rtim

e.

T

he

AG

re

ques

ted a

de

clara

tion an

d

preli

min

ary

and

pe rm

ane

nt

inju

nctio

ns

dir

ectin

g the

omp

trolle

r

to

pay

Sta

te

em

ploy

ees

no

m

ore

than

is re

qu ir

ed

un

de r

th

e

L

S

or, in

th

e alt

erna

tive, en

joini

ng

her fro

m

issu

ing

pa

yche

cks at a

ll.

4


5/18

The

Dep

artm

en t

of

Cent

ral

M

anag

eme

nt Se

rvic

es

CMS

an

d

m

any

o

f

the

un

ions

invo

lved

in

the

St

.

Clai

r Cou

nty

ca

se

inte

rven

ed

in

the

Coo

k C

oun

ty

cas

e.

CM

S

an

d t

he

C

omp

troll

er

sub

mitt

ed af

fidav

its

of

offic

ials

who

would

be

charged with

implementing

the A

G’s

pr

opo

sed o

rde r

.

Thes

e offi

cials

aver

red

th

at

i

t

w

ould ta

ke

m

any

m

ont

hs

fo

r

CM

S

to d

eterm

ine

wh

ich em

plo

yees

w

ere

co

vere

d

b

y

the F

LSA

an

d

adj

us t

the

pa

yroll

syste

m

to r

edu c

e th

e em

ploy

ees’

pay

to

the

fed e

ral

m

inim

um

wa

ge.

T

hey al

so

stat

ed tha

t

d

oing so

w

ou l

d re

quir

e

the

m to

ad

jus t

th

e am

oun

t

of

pa

yro l

l d

edu

ct ion

s an

d

wo

uld

“w reak

havoc”

on

the

State’s

retiremen t systems

8 O

n

July

7,

th

e Co

ok C

ount

y

cour

t

en

tered

a

TR

O

enjo

ining th

e

Com

ptr

oller

fro

m

iss

uing

payc

heck

s b

eyon

d t

he

min

imum

requ

irem

ents

o

f

the

FLS

A.

Th

e

C

omp

troll

er

CMS

an

d

the

un

ions

im

me

diate

ly f

iled

pe t

ition

s

for

revi

ew

and

th

e

C

ook

C

oun

ty

c

ou r

t

en te

red

a

n

ord

er s

tayin

g

the

T

RO

pe

ndin

g

the

Firs

t Dist

rict’s

de

cisi

on

in

th

at

ap

peal

9

Me

anw

hile

in

the

St.

C

lair

Co

unty

pr

ocee

ding

s t

he A

G fil

ed

a

m

otion

to di

sm is

s

the

unio

ns’

com

pl

in t on

J

uly 6

,

argu

ing

tha

t I

the

unio

ns’

s

uit

was

barr

ed b

y

sov

erei

gn

imm

unit

y;

2

the

cou

rt

sh

ould

dec

line

to

hea

r

the

cas

e beca

use

of

the

p

endi

ng C

ook

Co

unty

litig

at ion

;

and

3

the

un

ions

faile

d to

sta

te

a

c

laim

for

im

pa i

rmen

t

of co

ntra

ct

Th

e A

G

arg

ued that

impa irment

of

contract

claims

require legislative action

and

could

n

ot

be prem

ised

on the

leg

islat

ure’

s

fai l

ure

to

a

ct t

o pa

ss a

bud

get.

1

0 On

Ju ly

8, t

he un

ions

file

d the

mot

ion

f

or

a

TRO

tha

t is

at

iss

ue

in

this

ap

peal.

oin

ting

t

o

th

e

e

vide

nce sub

mitt

ed

by

t

he

Com

ptr

oller

and C

MS

in

th

e Co

ok C

oun

ty

cas

e

the

y

alleg

ed

th

at in

ligh

t of t

he

diff

icul

ties CM

S wou

ld

fac

e

in i

ssu i

ng

ch

ecks th

at

com

ply

with

on

ly

the

m

inim

al

r

equi

rem

ents

of th

e

F

LSA

, th

ere

wa

s

n

o

gua

rante

e

tha t


6/18

em

ploy

ees w

ould

be

pa

id at

all

Th

ey fu

rthe

r a

llege

d th

at S

tate

em

ploy

ees

ju

stifi

ly

re

lied

on

t

heir p

aych

eck

s

to

m

eet

the

ir

livi

ng ex

pen

ses

On

Ju

ly

9

th

e

C

omp

troll

er

fi

led a

moti

on

to

disqual ify the AG from

representing

he r

an

d

f

or

the ap

po in

tme

nt o

f priva

te

cou

nsel

H

er mo

tion

was

base

d

on th

e

fact

that

the

too

k

a

d

iffer

en t po

sitio

n

in

this li

tigat

ion t

han the

Co

mptr

oller

Th

e

tr

ial

cou

rt

s

ub se

qu en

tly

gra

nted t

his

mo

tion

12

Th e

St C

lair Cou

nty

co

urt he

ld

a

hear

ing o

n Ju

ly

9

an

d en

tered

a

writ

ten

o

rder

on

Ju ly

10

The

court

denied

the

AG’s

motion

to

dismiss

as to

the Comptroller bu t granted

the

mot

ion

to dis

miss

as

to

the

Sta

te

of I

llino

is Th

e

cour

t gran

ted

th

e

uni

ons’ m

otio

n fo

r

a TR

O

In

su

ppor

t of i

ts ruli

ng

on

the

TRO

the

co

urt

foun

d t

hat

t

he

unio

ns a

nd

th

ei r

m

em

bers

hav

e

a

pro

tect

able

rig

ht to b

e pa

id

T

he

co

urt

foun

d t

hat

the

un

ions

d

em o

nstr

ated

a

lik

eliho

od o

f

s

ucce

ss

o

n

th

e m

erit

s noti

ng

tha

t

fa ilu

re

to

pro

vide an

a

pp ro

pria

tion

to

pay

em

ploy

ees

w

ho wer

e requ

ired

to

w

ork imp

aire

d

the Sta

te’s

a

bili

ty

to

fulf

ill its

co

ntrac

tual

ob

liga

tions

The

cour

t fu

rthe r

fou

nd th

at

the

unio

ns

and

t

heir

me

mbe

rs h

ad

n

o

adeq

uate re

med

y

a

t law

noti

ng t

ha t

th

e hard

ship

s

c

ause

d

by

m

issed

p y

chec

ks in

clud

e

no

neco

nom

ic loss

es

In

bala

ncin

g the e

quit

ies

th

e c

ou rt

f

oun

d

t

ha t

Sta

te

employees

and

their

fam ilies should not suffer while the

Governor and legislature

“vie

for

a

r

esul

t

f

avor

able

to

th

eir p

olitic

al a

gen

das”

and th

at

deny

ing

the

mo

tion

cou

ld

exp

ose

th

e

S

tate

to sub

stan

tial

li

ab ili

ty und

er

the EL

SA

w

hich

inc

lude

s rem

edi

es s

uch as

in

teres

t

and

atto

rney fe

es

At

the

requ

es t

of

the C

omp

trol

ler

a

nd

o

ver

th

e

ob j

ec tio

n

of

the

AG

the c

ourt

m

ade

the

TR

O

a

pplic

able

to

all

St

ate e

mpl

oyee

s

not just

u

nion

m

emb

ers

6


7/18

On

Ju

ly

13

, the

AG

file

d

a peti

tion

f

or r

evie

w o

f

th

e

TR

O

p

ursu

n t to

Illi

nois

Su

prem

e C

ourt

Ru

le

307

d e

ff.

F

eb. 26,

201

0 . T

he

rul

e pr

ovid

es

tha

t

a

re

view

ing

c

our t

m

ust d

ecid

e

a

pe tit

ion

for

revie

w

of

a TRO

w

ithin

five

days after

the

expiration

of

the

time

for

filing

any

res

pond

ing

m

emo

rand

um

unle

ss

the

cour

t d

eems

it

a

ppro

pria

te to

mod

ify

that

s

ched

ule.

Ill

.

S.

C

t. R

. 30

7 d

4 ,

5

eff.

Feb

.

2

6,

20

10 .

We

f

ind

th

at

c

irc u

msta

nces

dicta

te

th t w

e d

evia

te

fro

m

the

fiv

e-da

y

sche

dule

, and

acco

rdin

gly

we

deem it

appr

op ri

ate

to

mo

dify

tha t

sch

edul

e.

14

On July

14,

the

Comptroller

filed

an

em ergency motion

to

dismiss this appe

al,

a

rguin

g tha

t th

e

AG

lac

ked

the a

utho

rity

to

file

an

ap

pea

l

on he

r

beh

lf

due

t

o t

he

diff

eren

ce s

of

po

sitio

n betw

een

t

he

AG

an

d

C

omp

troll

er

i

n

this

litig

ation

.

As

p

revio

usly

d

iscu

ssed,

the

t

rial

co

urt

gra

nted

the

C

omp

tro l

ler’s

mot

ion

to

d

isqu

alify

th

e A

G

from

rep

resen

ting

her

in

t

his

liti

gatio

n

on

th

at

basis

.

Th

e

AG

ar

gues

tha

t, as

the

St

ate’s

c

hief

legal o

ffic

er,

she

has the

au t

horit

y

to

pu

rsue th

is

appe

al

on

beh

lf

of

the

State

b

ecau

se th

e

S

tate

has

a

s

ubsta

ntia

l

int

eres

t

in th

e ou

tcom

e

of

t

his

liti

gatio

n.

W

e

a

gree

.

5

As the

AG

po in

ts

out, t

he

Sta

te of

Illin

ois

was

di

smis

sed

as

a

p

arty

o

n the

bas

is

of

s

ove

reign

im

mun

ity,

n

ot

bec

ause

it

lac

ks

a

n

in

teres

t in

th

e ou t

com

e

of

th

is l

itiga

tion .

l th

oug

h

th

e AG argues

in

her

pe tition

for review that the cour t erred

in

fa iling

to

dism

iss

the

en tir

e su

it

on

the

bas

is o

f so

vere

ign

im

mun

ity,

no p

arty

h

as

ap

pea

led

t

he

c

ourt’

s

dec

ision

to

gr

nt

the

m

otion

t

o dis

miss

as to t

he

Stat

e.

The

AG

arg

ues

th

at i

t

wou

ld

be

in

cong

ruou

s to

al

low

the

cou r

t

to

dis

miss

the

S

tate as

a party

o

n

th

is b

asis

and

th n

e

nter

“

a

t

em p

orary

res

train

ing

ord

er ad

vers

e to

the

S

tate

tha t

the

St

ate ha s

no

ab

ility

to

ap

pea

l.” W

e

find th

is

a

rgum

ent

lo

gical an

d p

ersu

asive

.

We

a

lso

not

e tha

t,

a

s

the A

G

7


8/18

po

ints

o

ut, Illi

nois

co

urts

h

ave

foun

d tha

t non

pa rt

y St

ate

age

ncies

hav

e

sta

nd in

g

to

file

ap

peal

s

in

cas

es

w

here

they

hav

e a

di r

ect and s

ubst

antia

l

int

eres

t

in

the

o

utco

me

ev

en

thou

gh

th

ey

are

no

t nam

ed

as

p

arti

es.

Se

e In

re

O

R

3

29 Ill.

A

pp.

3d

254,

2

57-58

20

02

cit in

g

Pe

ople v

Pi

ne ,

129

Ill. 2d

88

19

89 ,

a

nd

P

eopl

e v

Wh

ite,

1

65

Ill.

Ap

p.

3d

2

49

1988

;

se

e

also

Peop

le ex

re

t Har

tigan

v

E

E

H

aul

ing ,

In

c.,

15

3

Ill

.

2d

47

3, 48

2-

86

199

2 file

a

law

sui

t

on

beha

lf o

f the

S

tate

relat

ing t

o

cont

racts b

etw

een

pr iv

ate

ent

ities

and

a pu

blic

corp

orat

ion ev

en

th

oug

h the

p

ubli

c co

rpor

ation

did

n

ot

file

suit

itse lf .

16 W

e tu

rn

now

to

th

e

m

erit

s

of

the

AG’

s

app

eal.

Sh

e

firs

t arg

ues

tha

t the c

ourt

lacke

d

juri

sdic

tion

to

ente

r the

T

RO

bec

aus

e th

e C

ourt

of C

laim

s

has

ex

clusi

ve

juris

dict

ion

o

ver this l

itiga

tion

.

Thi

s is

so

, she

co

nten

ds, b

ecau

se th

is

is

an

ac

tion

a

ga in

st

th

e

S

tate

of

Ill

inois

bas

ed

o

n contr

acts

b

etwe

en

t

he

Stat

e and

th

e unio

ns.

W

e

di

sagr

ee.

17

As

the AG

po i

nts

ou

t, the

C

ou r

t

o

f C

laim

s

h

as

exc

lusiv

e

j

urisd

ictio

n

ove

r cas

es

invo

lvin

g

“c

laim

s

aga

inst

the

State

fo

unde

d

up

on any

con

tra c

t

e

ntere

d

into

wi th

the

Sta

te

of

Illi

nois

.”

7

05 I

LCS

50

5/8 b

Wes

t 201

4 .

Und

er the

Sta te

Law

suit

Im

mun

ity

A

ct,

the

State

of

Illin

ois

may

n

ot

b

e

sue

d e

xcep

t

a

s

prov

ided

und

er

t

he

Cou

rt

of

C

laim

s

Act or

cert

ain

oth

er sta

tuto

ry

prov

ision

s

not

relevant

here .

See

745

ILCS

5/1

West

2014 .

How

ever

,

unde

r

the

“Stat

e

offi

cer”

e

xcep

tion, c

ircui

t c

ourt

s hav

e

juri

sdict

ion ov

er

law

su its

ag

ains

t of fic

ers

of

t

he St

ate

of

Illin

ois

to

c

omp

el

or enjo

in futu

re

act

ions

wh e

re

the

plai

nt iff

s have

alleg

ed th

at the

off

icer’

s co

nduc

t or

fa

ilure

to

act

viola

tes

a

law

or

co

ns tit

utio

na l

prov

ision

.

See

Wils

on

v

Quin

n, 20

13 IL

A

pp

5th

12

0337

,

14

-15;

Had

ley v

De

part

men

t of

C

orre

ction

s 362

Ill.

App

. 3d

68

0, 683

20

05 .

Th

at

is

pre

cise

ly


9/18

w

hat the

un i

ons

ha

ve al

lege

d

here

.

T

hus

, t

he trial

cou

rt

had

ju

risdi

tion

to

en

ter the

ord

er.

1

8

T

he

AG

n

ex t

c

onte

nd s

tha

t

the

cour

t

ab

used

its

disc

re tio

n

b

y

rulin

g

in

this

maile r

due

to the

C

ook C

oun

ty l

itiga

tion

addr

essi

ng th

e s

ame ma

tter. She

argu

es tha

t

the rel

ief

ord

ered

here

con f

licts

with

th

e o

rder e

nter

ed

in

the

Coo

k C

ou nt

y

ca

se.

W

e

are

no

t

per

su d

ed fo

r tw

o reas

ons.

F

irst

the A

G’s s

uit

aga

inst

the

Co

mpt

rolle

r

in

Co

ok

C

ou n

ty

did no

t

ra

ise the

sam

e

ar

gu m

ents the

un

ions

raise

d

in

th

e

St.

Cl

air

Co u

nty

act

ion .

Second the

First District

has

since vacated the Cook County

court’s

TRO

and

remande d

the ma

tter.

T

he

Fir

st Di

stric

t

fo

und

that

th

e

C

ook

Co

unty

cour

t 1

fai

led

to

lim

it

th

e

du

rati

on

o

f

the

TRO

a

nd 2

f

ail ed

to m

ake

fin

ding

s

r

ega r

ding

b

alanc

ing

the e

quiti

es .

It

is

un c

lear

whe

ther

the

Coo

k Co u

nty

c

ourt wi l

l

reach the

same

re

sult on

rem a

nd

up

on

m k

ing t

hose

find i

ngs.

It

is

a

lso

un c

lear

w

he t

he r

th

e Fir

st

D

istr

ict w

ill up

hold

th

e

T

RO

on

app

eal

sho

uld

the C

ook

Cou n

ty c

our t

dec

ide

it i

s

ap

pro

priat

e t

o e

nter

the

o

rde r

afte

r

w

eig

hing

the e

quiti

es.

In

ord

er

for

pay

chec

ks th

at ar

e due o

n

Ju

ly

to

be

issu

ed , CM

S

m

ust b

egin

pr

o es

sing pa

yrol

l

th

is

we

ek.

Th

us,

t

his

is

an extr

em e

ly tim

e sen

sitiv

e

matt

er.

W

e

fin

d th

at it

wa

s appr

opri

ate

for

th

e St.

Clair

C

ount

y

cou

rt

to

r

ule

in

this

m

tte

r r t

he r

tha

n

waiting

for the Cook Cou nty litigat ion

involving

an

orde r that

is

cu

rrent

ly s

taye

d

to

be

reso

lved

.

1

9

Th

e

A

G

furt

he r arg

ues

th t

th

e co

urt

abus

ed its

dis

creti

on

be ca

us e the

unio

ns

did

n

ot es

tabli

sh tha t

the

r

equi

rem

ents

for

issu

ing

a

T

RO

are

pres

en t i

n

thi

s

c

ase.

We

disa

gree

.


10/18

¶2

Th

e

pu

rpos

of

a

TRO

is

t

o

pre

serv

e

t

he

stat

us qu

o

unti

l

th

e co

urt

ca

n

ho l

d a

h

ring

t

o

de te

rm in

e

wh

ethe

r a

pre

limin

ary

injun

ctio

n

is

w

arran

ted.

Abdu

lhaf

edh v

S

ecre

tary

o

f

Stat

e, 161

Iii. A

pp.

3

d

413

,

4

16

1

987

). It

is

a

“dr

ast ic

reme

dy”

which

sh

ould

on

ly be gran

ted

“in ex

cept

iona

l cir

cum

stanc

es

an

d f

or

a

b

rief

du

ratio

n.” Ame

rica

n

Fe

derat

ion

of S

tate,

Cou

nty,

Mu

nici

pa l E

mpl

oyee

s v

R

yan

,

332

Iii

. A

pp. 3

d 96

5,

966

20

02

. A

TR

O

is p

rop

er

on ly if

the

cou

rt

find

s

tha

t

1

)

the

par

ty

requ

estin

g

t

he o

rder

has

apro

tecta

ble

righ

t; 2

) th

e pa

rty

wi

ll

su

ffer

irre

para

ble

harm if

th

e T

RO

is

no

t g

ran t

ed;

3)

there

is

no

adequate

remedy

at

law; 4)

there

is

a

likelihood

tha t the party

requesting

the

TRO

w

ill

suc

ceed

on

the

mer

its; an

d

5 )

a b

alanc

e

o

f

th

e equi

ties

fa

vors

iss

uing t

he

TRO

.

Kan

ter

Eisen

berg

v

Ma

dison A

ssoc

iates

,

116

Ill.

2

d 506,

5

10-1

1

1

987

;

Sc

heff

el

C

o.

v

Fess

ler

356

I

ll.

A

pp.

3d 308

, 31

3

20

05)

. On

appe

al,

we

wil

l reve

rse

a

TRO

onl

y

if we

find th

at th

e

trial

co

urt

abus

ed

its

d

iscre

tion

in mak

ing

the

se

find

ings

.

Bra

dfor

d

v

W

yns

tone

Pro

pert

y

Own

ers’

Ass’

n.

355 I

ll.

App

. 3

d

73

6,

739

2 00

5).

2

1 H

ere,

there

is

n

o

rea l d

ispu

te

tha

t

th

e un

ions

,

the

ir me

mbe

rs,

and

oth

er

S

tate

em

ploy

ees

hav

e a

pro

tecta

ble

righ

t

to

be

p

aid

fo

r wo

rk th

ey p

erfor

m.

We

als

o ag

ree

w

ith

t

he co

urt

th

at

St

ate

e

mpl

oyee

s

w

ill

suffe

r

i

rrepa

rabl

e h

arm

if

the

TR

O is

not

gran

ted.

A

s

the

unio

ns

stat

ed

in th ir

motion requesting

the

TRO ,

no one

know s

when

the

budge t

impa

sse

w

ill

end.

Cou

rts

h

ave

fou

nd

that i

rrep

arabl

e

ha

rm

re

sult

s

f

rom

c

on tin

uing

trans

gres

sion

s.

Ha

dley, 3

62

Ill

. A

pp. 3

d a

t 628.

W

e

a

lso

ag re

e tha

t

the

unio

ns’

m

emb

ers

ha

ve

n

o

a

dequ

ate rem

edy

at

la

w.

Stat

e e

mplo

yee

s can

no t b

e

expe

cted

to

br

ing

m

ultip

le

la

wsu i

ts to

atte

mpt

to

pro

tect

t

heir

righ

ts.

See

H

adle

y,

3

62

I

ii.

App.

3

d

at

6S8

-89

. In

addition,

a

s

th

e

trial c

ourt

p

oint

ed o

ut,

ther

e ar

e

co

nseq

uen

ces

tha

t

flo

w fr

om

no t

1


11/18

re

ce iv

ing

a

pa y

che

ck

som

e of

w

hich ar

e n

onm

one

tary

in

na t

ure a

nd ca

nn o

t be adeq

uate

ly

rem

edie

d

b

y

a

n

aw

ard

of

da

mag

es. T

he

loss

of

pa

y

will, a

t th

e v

ery

lea

st, cau s

e S

tate

em

plo

yees a

nd

th

eir

fa

mili

es

a

g

ood

dea

l o

f str

ess .

S

ome

ma

y

be

u

nab

le to

make

pay

men

ts on

the

ir ho

mes c

ars,

or

ot

her deb

ts.

W

e

find

no

a

buse

of

di

scre

tion i

n

the

cou

rt’s

deter

min

ation th

at

the

u

nion

s

met

the

ir bu

rden

of

est

ablis

hing

t

hat

they

hav

e a

prote

ctab

le

righ

t, wi

ll suf

fer

irrep

arab

le

ha

rm

wit

hou t

the

in

jun c

tion

an

d ha

ve

no

adeq

ua te

re

med

y a

t law

.

22

The

AG

argues tha t

the

unions not only

have

not show n

a

likelihoo d

of

success

on

the

me

rits

bu

t

hav

e

fa

iled

to

s

tate

a cla

im f

or i

mpa

irm e

nt

o

f

co

ntrac

t. W

e

em

ph a

size

h

ow e

ve r

t

hat

a

pa r

ty

s

eek i

ng a

TR

O

do

es

not

ne

ed

t

o

de m

onst

rate that

it

w

oul

d

be

enti

tled

to

a f

inal j

udgm

ent

at tri

al.

It

is su

ffici

ent

to ra

ise a “

fair

q

uest

ion”

ab

ou t

the

r

ight

to

reli

ef. S

tock

er

H

inge

M

anu

fact

urin

g C

o.

v D

ame

Ind u

strie

s

Inc

.

9

4 Ill

. 2d

53

5, 5

42

1

983

).

As disc

usse

d

pre

viou

sly

th

e

AG

too

k th

e po s

ition

in

t

he

Coo k

Co

unty

case

th

at a

prese

nt co

ntro

vers

y ex

isted

betw

een

h

er

an

d

th

e Co

mpt

rolle

r

d

ue

to

“su b

stant

ial

un

cert

ainty re

gard

ing

w

hich

if an

y,

pa

ym e

nts

ma

y

be

au t

horiz

ed by

t

he

omp

trolle

r

in

the

ab

sen

ce of a

nnu

al ap p

rop

riatio

n

stat

ute s.

” Th i

s i

s,

in

ess

ence

an

ckno

wle

dgem

en t

th

t

th

ere

is

a

t

lea s

t

a

fair

question

as

to

the righ ts

asserted

in

this

l

aw s

uit.

2

3

In

supp

or t

o

f

her a

rgum

en t

to th

e

co nt

rary

the A

G

cite

s

Am

erica

n Fe

dera

tion

o

f

Stat

e, C

oun

ty

Mu

nici

pal Em

ploy

ees

v

Nets

ch, 216

Ill.

App.

3d

5

66

1991

), a

2

4 ye

ar

old

de

cisio

n

o

f the

Fo

urth D

istr

ict .

Wh

ile

Ne ts

ch do

es

pr

ovid

e

sup p

ort

for

the AG’

s

po

sitio

n

we

do

no t find it

to be

c

ontr

ollin

g.


12/18

24

In

Ne

tsch

as

here,

th

e legis

latur

e

faile

d to

pass

any

a

ppro

priat

ion bill prior to

the

start

of

the

new

fi

scal ye

ar.

Ne

tsch, 21

6

III

.

Ap

p.

3

d a

t 56

8.

U

nion

s

repr

esen

ting

Sta

te

emp

loye

es f

iled

an

ac

tion

se

ek in

g

a

w

rit

of

m

and

amu

s

com

pe l

ling th

e C

omp

troll

er to

issue

payc

heck

s

to

all

Stat

e

em

plo

yees t

hat

were

du

e to

be

p

aid

on

July

15,

1

991 .

N

etsc

h,

2

16 Ill

.

A

pp.

3d

at

567

.

A

s

au

tho r

ity fo

r

the

pro

pos

ition

tha

t the

C

omp

trol

ler

h

ad

a

cle

ar

d

uty

to is

sue

the

pa

yche

cks t

he pl

ainti

ffs

re

lied

on

sec

tion

3

of

the Stat

e

Com

pt ro

lle r

Act

Il

l. R

ev. S

tat. 1

989

, ch.

1

5,

213

n

ow

a

t

5 IL

CS

40

5/13

W

est

201

4

.

25

The Fourth

District noted

that although

this

statute “describes the means

by

which

the

com

ptro

ller is

req

ui re

d to di

sbur

se

s

alari

es

it i

s not

a

utho

rity fo

r the

exp

endi

ture

of

a

ny

fun

d

o

r fun

ds

w

hich

hav

e not be

en

app r

opria

ted f

or

tha t

purp

ose.

” N

etsch

21

6 I

II.

Ap

p.

3d

a

t 56

8. Th

us,

the

cou

rt fo

und n

o

cle

ar au t

horit

y

for the

C

om

ptrol

ler

to

issu

e

payc

heck

s ab

sent

an app

ropri

ation

s

bi

ll.

N

ersc

h,

2

16

UI

A

pp.

3d

at

568

-69 .

T

he c

our t

w

en t

fu

rther

n

otin

g tha

t iss

uing

p

aych

eck

s

with

ou t

an appr

opri

ation

s

bil

l

“wo

uld c

reat

e

o

bv io

us

p

robl

ems

und

er

the

se

para

tion-

of-p

ow e

rs doc

trine

”

Nets

ch, 21

6 Ill.

A

pp .

3d at

568

, a

nd

stati

ng tha t

the

C

omp

troll

er w

as pr

oh ib

ited

from

issu

ing p

ayc

heck

s

at

tha

t time

Ne

tsch

216 I

ll.

App

. 3d

at 56

9 .

26

Nets

ch p

rovi

de s

ob

viou

s

su

ppo

rt

for the

AG’s

position. How ever we

do

not

be

lieve

it

is

c

ontro

llin

g

for

th

ree

rea

son

s. Fi

rst,

th

e

N

etsc

h

c

ourt

’s

dec i

sion

wa

s

fra

med

by

the

argu

men

ts o

f the

p

artie

s

a

nd

t

he

form

of

re

lief t

he pl

ainti

ffs

so

ugh

t—a

w

rit

of

ma

ndam

us I

n o

rder t

o ob t

ain

a w

rit

of ma

ndam

us

a p

arty

“mus

t es t

ablis

h a

c

lear

r

ight

to

the

re

qu es

ted re

lief ,

a

cle

ar duty

of

the

pu

blic o

ffic

er to a

ct,

an

d

clea

r

au t

horit

y o

f th

e

p

ublic

of f

icer

to

comply

wi

th the o

rder.

”

c

atri

dge

v

Mad

igan

20

13 I

L

113

676,

17

.

1

2


13/18

The

uni

ons’

arg

um e

nt here

is no

t

th

at the

C

omp

troll

er

h

as

a cle

r

du

ty

an

d

auth

ority to

a

ct;

ra

ther

th

ey a

rgue

tha t

a f

ailu

re to act

ru

ns

afo

ul

of

the

cons

tituti

onal

p

rohib

itio

n

again

st

imp

airm

en t

of

cont

ract.

T

he

pl

ainti

ffs

i

n

N

ets

ch

d

id

not

ra

ise

the

con

stitu

tion

al

a

rgum

ent

s

rais

ed by th

e un

ions

in

t

his

case

,

and

su

ch ar

gum

en ts

w

ould

n

ot

hav

e be

en

ap

pro

priat

e

in

a

m

and

amu

s

ac

tion

T

hus, wh

ile

the N

etsch

c

ourt rea

ched

t

he

re

sult

adv

anc

ed

b

y

the A

G, it

did no

t re

solv

e

the

q

ue s

tions

invo

lved in

this

ca

se

beca

use

it

was

no

t c

alle

d u

pon

to

do

so.

27

Second the Netsch court

itself

ind ica ted that

in

the event

of a

protrac ted

budget

stan

doff

co

urts

m

ay legi

tima

tely

be

ca

lled

up

on to

inter

vene

. T

he cou

rt st

ated

,

“Wh

ile

we

no

w

hold

tha

t

th

e i

ssue of

g

ener

al

brea

kdo

wn of

go

ve rn

men

t

i

s

no

t befo

re

us, w

e ar

e

no

t say i

ng th

at

th

e

cour

ts

a

re

b

arre

d

from

in

terve

ning i

n the

e

vent th

at th

e

l

egis

lativ

e

or

exe

cuti

ve bra

nch

es

fail to

p

erfor

m the

ir co

nstit

utio

na l

ff

incti

ons.

” N

ets

ch

216

I

ll. A

pp

3d

at

56

9.

2

8 T

he

th i

rd

re

aso

n w

e

d

o not fin

d N

etsc

h

to

be

co

ntrol

ling

is tha

t at l

east one rece

nt

dec

ision

stro

ngly sup

port

s

th

e a

rgum

en t

s

adva

nce

d by th

e

unio

ns

in

t

his

case

.

St

ate

v

me

rican

ed

er t

ion

of Sta

te, C

oun

ty,

M

unic

ipal E

mpl

oyee

s, C

ounc

il 31

invo

lved

a

cont

ract disp

ute

t

ha t

arose

after

the le

gisl

ature enacted

a

budget

that

did

no t

appropriate

suffi

cient

fund

s

to p

ay

emp

loy

ees

i

n

4

Sta

te

ag

enci

es

the

sa

lary in

crea

ses

to wh

ich th

ey

were en t

itled

u

nde

r th eir

coll

ectiv

e

bar

gain

ing ag

reem

en t

s S

tate

v

Ame

rican

ede

r tio

n

of Sta

te,

Co

unty

,

Mu

nicip

al Em

plo

yees

,

Co

uncil

31,

2

014

IL

App

1 st

)

1302

62 ,

8

here

inaft

er

Sta

te C

MS

)). B

ecau

se o

f the

inad

equ a

te

app r

opria

tion

CMS f

roze

the

3


14/18

s

alari

es

of

thos

e e

mplo

yee

s

at

the

ir

prev

ious

level

s. Sta

te

CM

S ,

20

14

IL

App

1st

13

026

2,

8

2

9

The un i

on s

soug

ht a

rbitr

ation

, an

d

the

arbi

trato

r rul

ed in

the

ir favo

r. St

ate

CM

S ,

2014

IL

Ap

p 1s

t

1

302

62,

9. T

he

Sta

te

fi

led

a pe

titio

n to

vaca

te

t

he

arb

itrat

ion

awa

rd ,

w

hich

the

tr

ial

cou

rt g

rante

d

in r

eleva

nt p

art. T

he

Sta t

e

appe

aled

tha t

ruli

ng,

a

rgu i

ng

t

hat

the

co l

lecti

ve bar

ga in

ing

a

greem

ent imp

osed

no

bind

ing

oblig

atio

n

on

t

he

Sta t

e bec

au se

the agre

eme

nt

ob lig

ated

t

he

S

tate

t

o

p

ay s

alar

ies

wi th

fi

n s

th

e le

gisla

ture h

ad

n

ot

yet

app ropr iated.

State

CMS ,

2014

IL

App 1st

130262,

In

rejecting

this

argumen t,

th

e

Firs

t

Di

stric

t

fo

und

that

be

caus

e the

leg

islat

ure

app

ropr

iates fin

s

on

a yea

rly

basi

s,

th

e

S

tate’

s p

osit

ion

w

ou l

d

co

mpl

etely

el

imin

ate

the

ab il

ity o

f S

tate

ag

enc i

es

to

en

ter in

to

m

ulti

ye r co

ntra

cts, a

resu

lt at

o

dds

wit

h sta

tuto

ry prov

ision

s.

St

ate

CM

S ,

201

4 I

L

App

1

st

130

262,

37

citin

g

5 I

LCS

3

15/2

1 We

st 2

008

.

30

We

a

ckno

wle

dge

that

the A

G’s

arg

umen

t

here

is

no

t

q

uite

so

exp

ans i

ve.

She

is

not

ar

gu in

g

tha

t

the

State

lack

ed

t

he

au

thor i

ty

to

en te

r

in

to

the

coll

ectiv

e

ba rg

ainin

g

a

gree

men

ts at i

ssue

or

th

at

the

y

a

re in

val i

d; she

a

rgu e

s on

ly tha

t th

e

Com

ptro

ller la

cks th

e

au

thor

ity

to

com

ply

w

ith

the

t

erm s

of

the

c

olle

ctive

b

arga

inin

g

a

gree

men

ts u

ntil a

budg

et

is in

plac

e.

H

owe

ver,

the

end

re

sult

is

the

same.

Accepting

the

State’s

theory

wou ld

al

low t

he

leg

islat

ure “in

eve

ry

appr

opria

tion

s bill

to

imp

air the S

tate

’s o

blig

ation

s

und

er

i

ts co

ntra

cts.”

Em

phas

is ad

ded .

S

tate

C

MS

,

201

4

IL

Ap

p 1s

t

130

262

,

39.

T

he

irst

ist

rict fou

nd th

is r

esult

to be

u

nten

able

.

Sig

nific

antl

y

for

ou

r

pu rp

ose

s, the

cour

t

c

onc

lude

d

tha

t

enfo

rcin

g the

con t

ractu

al

oblig

atio

n to

pa

y

t

he

s

alar

y

inc

rease

s de

spi t

e th

e

in

adeq

ua te

appropriation “fi

rther

s

the

exp r

ess

con

stitu

tiona

l p

olicy for

bidd

ing

t

he

14


15/18

General

Assembly

from passing

any

acts, including

insufficient

appropriation

bills,

that

enforcement

of

the

collective

bargaining

agreement

State

CMS , 2014

IL App

1st

13

262

tJ

1-2.

932

We

also

note

that

both

the

United

States

Supreme

Court

and

our

State supreme

court

have

“held

that particular

scrutiny

of legislative

action is warranted

when,

as

here, a

state

seeks

to impair

a contract

to which

it is

itsel

f

a

party

and its

interest [in

doing

so] is

financial ”

In

re

Pension

Reform

Litigation.

2015

IL 118585,

63. It

would hardly

comport

with this

“particular

scrutiny”

to

hold that

the

prohibition

against

impairment

of

contract is entirely

inapplicable

to

governmental

failure

to

act.

33

We do not

decide

the question on the

merits, However,

we find

that persuasive

authority

exists

to

support

the

position

o

f the unions

and

the Comptroller

They have

met

their

burden

of demonstrating

a

likelihood

of success

on

the merits.

impair

the obligation

ofco

ntrac

ts ”

State

C’CAJS .

2014

IL

App 1st

130262,

40 .

9

31

The

AG seeks

to distinguish

this

case

from cases

such

as State

CA/IS,

by

arguing

that

the constitutional

prohibition

against

impairment of contract

applies

only

to

legislative

action—such

as the enactment

o

f an inadequate

appropriations

bill

at

issue

in

Slate

CMS,—and

not

to

legislative

inaction—such

as

the

failure

to

enact

a

budget

at

issue

here.

We

find

this

to be a distinction

without

a

difference

As the

unions

argue

in

response

both

scenarios

lead

to the

same result. Th e AG contends that the

distinction

is

significant

because

the

remedy

for

an

impairment

of ’

contract

is

invalidation

of

the

offending

legislation

We

note, however

that

in

State

CA/IS ,

the remedy

was

15


16/18

34

We

turn

to

the last

requirement

for

a TRO—a

balancing

of

the

equities

The

court

found

that

this balancing inquiry’

favors

granting

the injunction and

we agree As

the

court

noted

State

employees

and

their

families

depend

on

their

paychecks

to

pay

their

bills

The Comptroller

and

CM S

have

asserted

that it

will be

virtually

impossible for

them

to

adjust

the

State’s

payroll

system

to

issue

paychecks

that

comply

with

the minimal

requirements

of

the

FLSA

instead

of

checks

that

compensate

employees

at their regular

salaries

Thus

if

the st n off

between

the

Governor

and

legislature

goes on

indefinitely

State

employees

and

their families

could

be left

without resources

to

pay

their

bills and

support

themselves

This

harm

is

severe

and irreparable

35

By

contrast the

AG

argues

that

the

State

will

be irreparably

harmed if

forced to

make

p yments without

an appropriations

bill Significantly

she does

no t

contend that

th e S ta te

lacks

adequate

ifinds

to pay

employees

and

the

unions

have

alleged

that the

State does

have

adequate

fin s available

In other

words the

only

harm

the AG alleges

the

State

might

suffer

is that it

might be

ordered

to pay salaries

it

is

obligated to

pay

before

an

appropriations

bill

is

passed

authorizing

the

payments

This

harm

pales

in

signifi n e

compared

to

the

harm

that

might

be suffered

by

State

employees and

their

families

if

the

TRO

is

not granted

36

Moreover

a decision

not to

ente r the

TRO

would

likely

impose

significant

burdens

on

the State

as

well

As

previously

discussed having

to

alter

the

State’s

payroll

system to comply

with

the

minimal

requirements

of the

FLSA

would

require CM S

to

expend

considerable time

and

resources In

addition liability

for failure

to

do so in

a

timely

m nner

could

be

substantial

Further

if

the

budget

impasse

continues indefinitely

16


17/18

and

th

e Co

mpt

rolle

r is

n

ot

al low

ed

to iss

ue

p

aych

ecks

, the S

tate m

ay

be

com

e u

nab

le

to

p

rovi

de cruc

ial

go

vern

ment

al

s

erv i

ces.

The c

ourt d

id n

ot

a

buse

it

s

dis

creti

on

in

find

ing

t

ha t

a

balan

ce

o

f the eq

uiti

es fav

ors

gran

ting th

e TR

O.

3

7 F

inall

y, the

AG

arg

ues

that the

c

ourt co

mm

itted r

ever

sible

err

or b

y

all

owin

g

the

Co

mpt

rolle

r

to be

re

pres

en ted

by at t

orne

ys oth

er

than t

he

AG

.

She co

nten

ds t

hat

thi

s

e

rror

so

“i

nfec

ted th

e T

RO”

tha

t

it

mu

st

be reve

rsed

.

W

e

d

isag

ree .

The

re is “n

o

cle

ar-cu

t

def

initi

ve

ans

wer”

to t

he

issu

e of

the

p

rope

r

pro

cedu

re

to

fo

llow w

hen

a

pub

lic

o

ffici

al

disagrees

with

the attorney

whose

statutory

duty

it is

to

represent

the official.

Suburban

Coo

k Co

unty

Reg

iona

l

Off

ice

of

Edu

catio

n v C

ook C

oun

ty

oar

d

2

82

Ill.

App

.

3d

560,

57

0-71

19

96 .

C

ou rts

h

ave

app r

oved

th

e

a

ppo

intm

ent

of

ind

epen

dent co

unse

l

a

s

a

so

lutio

n to

this p

robl

em .

Pe

op le e

x

ret S

klod

ows

ki v Sta

te, 1

62 Ill.

2d

117,

12

7 1

994

;

Sub

urba

n

C

ook

Co

unty

Re

gion

al Off

ice of

Edu

catio

n,

2

82

III.

App

.

3

d

at

573

.

He

re,

th

e

cour

t

all

ow e

d

the

C

omp

troll

er’s ge

nera

l cou

nsel

a

nd

p

riv a

te

a

ttorn

eys

t

o

repr

esen

t

he r

p

rior to

ma

king

suc

h

an

appo

intm

ent.

How

ever

, ev

en

if

w

e as

sum

e

t

his

wa

s err

or,

th

e

A

G

appe

ared

on

b

ehal

f

of

the

Sta

te

an

d

fully a

nd

vig

orou

sly

a

dvan

ced

th

e

argu

men

ts she

raise

s

in

th

is app

eal.

We

fi

nd no me

rit t

o

he

r

c

onte

ntio

n

th

at

th

e

TR

O mu

st be

r

ever

sed

on

this b

asis

.

38 W

e fi

nd

n

o

abu

se

of the cou

rt’s

di

scre

tion in

ente

ring the

TRO

.

How

ever

,

ther

e

i

s

no

i

ndic

ation

in

the

r

eco r

d tha

t

the co

urt

set a

da

te for

a

he

arin

g

on

a

prel

im in

ary

inju

ncti

on, a

t w

hic

h time

the

TRO

wo

uld

expi

re.

A

T

RO

is an em

erge

ncy

m

eas

ure

whi

ch ,

a

s

no

ted

e

arlie

r,

may

only be

iss

ued

for

a

brie

f du

ratio

n.

Ab

dulh

afed

h, 161

Ill.

App.

3d

at

416.

f

a

TRO

is

en tered exp

arte

it

may n

ot

be

i

n

e

ffect

for lo

nge r

tha

n

10

7


18/18

days. Abdulhafedh .

161

UI. App.

3d

at

416.

Although

this specific limit

is

not applicable

where

as

here

a

TR O

is

issued with notice

to

the opposing

party

the

TR O

must

s ti ll be

o limited

duration.

Abdulhafedh

161

III.

App.

3d at 4 16 17.

Here

the

TR O doe s not

explicitly

contain an

expiration

date

and

it

appears

on

the

record

before us

that

no

h ring

date has

been

set

for

a

preliminary

injunction.

“To

allow

a TR O

o

unlimited

duration

is

to

have

a

preliminary

injunction

without allowing

the defendant

a fair

opportunity

to

show

wh y

the injunction

should

not be

issued.”

Abdulhafedh

161

Ill.

App.

3d at 417.

Thus we remand

this

matter

to

the

trial

court

with

directions to

set

a

date

for a h ring

it has no t

already

done

so.

39

Motion

to

dismiss

denied;

order affirmed;

cause

remanded with directions.

18

5th district illinois appellate court order

Documents