Village Water Commission's Decision to Consolidate Water Meters in Strip Mall Upheld

Village Water Commission's Decision to Consolidate Water Meters in Strip Mall Upheld

  Thursday, November 05, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld a village water commission's decision to consolidate water meters in a strip mall in a lawsuit filed by the strip mall owner claiming that the consolidation violated the owner's equal protection rights and was arbitrary and capricious. B&D Investment Group v. Justice-Willow Springs Water Commission

A strip mall had multiple tenant spaces and separate water meters for each space. The village's water commission decided to consolidate most of the water meters into one meter and informed the owner of its decision. The owner argued that the consolidation of the meters would require him to calculate water usage and charge tenants for their use. He filed a lawsuit, claiming that the decision violated his equal protection rights because the water commission had not made the same decision for similarly situated properties. The circuit court ruled in favor of the water commission and he appealed.

On appeal, the owner argued that that he was irrationally singled out for consolidation of its water meters in a "class of one" equal protection claim. To prevail on that claim, he would need to show he was intentionally treated differently from others who were similarly situated and that there was no rational basis for different treatment. The Appellate Court determined that the owner failed to meet the first prong because he could not show that there were others who were similarly situated where the water commission demonstrated that his property was different because the tenants in his strip mall had more delinquent water bills that created additional administrative costs on the village's part. The Court also rejected the owner's argument that the commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious, finding that the commission's treatment of owner was not unreasonable based on the circumstances. As a result, the Court upheld the lower court's ruling in favor of the water commission.

Read More

Federal Court Rules that City Social Media Comment Policy Violates First Amendment

Federal Court Rules that City Social Media Comment Policy Violates First Amendment

  Monday, November 02, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

A federal court in Georgia issued a summary judgment ruling in a challenge to a city's actions in deleting comments and blocking users from the official city Facebook page. 

A user posted frequently on the city's Facebook page, and some of those posts were critical of the city, its departments, and city employees and officials. Shortly after posting certain criticism, he found he was no longer able to access the city Facebook page from his personal Facebook account, and when he searched for the page, the search returned the message "This Content Isn't Available." He was, however, able to access the page from his business Facebook account. He also discovered that another of his comments were "hidden" from public view. After being blocked from the city's page, he filed FOIA requests with the city seeking records regarding the city's blocking of him from the page. The city did not provide any responsive records. In response to questions about the city's actions to block him from the page, the city responded that no city employee blocked him, a "blocked user list" did not show his name, and that the city did not violate the First Amendment. 

The user filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that the city and certain city employees and officials violated his First amendment rights by blocking him from the page and hiding his comments and that the city should be sanctioned for its failure to preserve evidence of its blocked user list.

First, the district court found that the city had a duty to preserve records pertaining to its blocking of users from its Facebook page, i.e., the blocked user list. As a remedy, the court prohibited the city from making any argument at trial that its blocked users list did not contain the user's name. 

Second, the court determined that the city's social media comment policy was unconstitutional because it banned comments that could constitute protected speech. For example, the court determined that the comment policy's ban on "personal attacks," "harassment," as well as "abusive," "racist," and "hateful" speech constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The court also found that the policy provided too much discretion to administrators to apply these restrictions in a manner that would ban protected speech. 

The court also struck down the comment policy's restrictions on "defamatory" comments, "unsupported accusations," and "off-topic comments," finding that the administrators had received no guidance or training on how to apply those terms and that the city employees had testified they thought "defamatory" meant that a user was bringing up past issues or "talking smack" about another person.

The court allowed some of the remaining claims to continue to trial. 

You can read the court's ruling here.

Read More

Firefighter's Termination Upheld

Firefighter's Termination Upheld

  Wednesday, October 21, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld a city's decision to terminate a city firefighter from the fire department for using his late father's electrician's license to obtain electrical permits for his second job. Chicago Firefighters Union v. City of Chicago, et al. 

A city firefighter had a second job working with an electrical contracting business with his father. His father held a city supervising electrician license. After his father died, the firefighter continued to renew and use his father's electrician's license to obtain electrical permits. After a city investigation, he was terminated for violating the fire department code of professional conduct, various city ordinances, the state's identity theft statute, and city personnel rules. He appealed his termination which went to arbitration, and the arbitrator found that he had violated several city ordinances and state law and that the city's termination was justified. He then filed a lawsuit in the circuit court which also upheld his termination.

On appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, the firefighter argued that the arbitrator's decision was in error because, among other things, the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in making a determination as to whether the firefighter violated city ordinances and state law. The Appellate Court disagreed, finding that the arbitrator did have that authority. The Court also rejected the firefighter's argument that a lesser discipline should have been imposed, finding that the CBA authorized termination where just cause exists.

Read More

Court Finds in Favor of Public Body in FOIA Case

Court Finds in Favor of Public Body in FOIA Case

  Monday, October 19, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An individual sued a Sheriff’s Office alleging that the Sheriff’s Office violated FOIA (1) by not producing requested records (jail handbook, medical records, and federal detention standards) in response to his FOIA requests, (2) by improperly charging him fees for certain requested records, and (3) seeking civil penalties against the Sheriff’s Office because their alleged violations were willful and intentional, or otherwise in bad faith.

The trial court dismissed the case finding that: (1) the Sheriff’s Office was authorized to charge fees for requested documents exceeding 50 pages, (2) the non-existence of certain records in the Sheriff’s Office possession or custody was an affirmative defense to his complaint, (3) his prior receipt of requested records from the Sheriff’s Office made that part of his requests moot, and (4) the Sheriff’s Office response to his requests did not justify imposition of civil penalties.

On appeal, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the case in Walters v. Ogle County Sheriff’s Office.

First, because the individual had previously acknowledged that he received his requested medical records and jail handbook from the Sheriff’s Office, the Appellate Court found that claim "moot" because the court could not grant him relief by directing the Sheriff’s Office to produce documents he already had.

Second, the Appellate Court held that the Sheriff’s Office cannot violate FOIA by failing to produce records that do not exist in its possession or custody.

Finally, the Appellate Court held that the Sheriff’s Office did not willfully or intentionally, or otherwise in bad faith, violate FOIA by charging plaintiff fees for copies of records after providing 50 pages at no cost. The Court determined that, as a single requester, he was entitled to 50 free pages total, and the Sheriff’s Office was free to charge him for pages after 50 regardless of how many requests he had submitted. 

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Read More

City Has Private Right of Action to Recover PEDA Benefits from Employee

City Has Private Right of Action to Recover PEDA Benefits from Employee

  Thursday, October 15, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a city in a lawsuit filed by the city to recover payments made to an employee under the Public Employees' Disability Act (PEDA). City of Monmouth v. Thomas.

A city employee received disability benefits from a city under PEDA. The city filed a lawsuit against the employee claiming he forfeited those benefits when he engaged in secondary employment, and that the city was entitled to a return of $55,370.66 in benefits. The circuit court held that PEDA does not provide a right of action to the city to recover benefits even where those benefits were forfeited under the statute, and that the city had an adequate remedy in its secondary "unjust enrichment" claim. 

The city appealed, arguing that PEDA creates an implied right of action to recover payments made to an employee that the employee statutorily forfeits under the statute. The Appellate Court acknowledged that PEDA does not include express language authorizing a private right of action to recover benefits but noted that the Illinois Supreme Court had established four factors to consider in deciding whether a right might exist by implication. In applying those four factors, the Appellate Court held as follows:

Based on the foregoing application of the Fisher factors, we find it reasonable to conclude the Act implies a private right of action for public employers who suffer monetary injury resulting from disability payments made to public employees who are secondarily employed while receiving benefits under the Act. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that the City could not pursue an action under the Act was in error.

The Appellate Court sent the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings. 

Read More

Court Upholds Electoral Board Decision Rejecting Objection to Referendum Petition

Court Upholds Electoral Board Decision Rejecting Objection to Referendum Petition

  Wednesday, October 14, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld a decision by a municipal electoral board that denied an objection to a petition for a referendum question in Peres v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board.

Village residents circulated a petition to submit a referendum question to village voters on the November 3rd ballot that stated the following: "Should the State of Illinois repeal laws that ban state investment in businesses that boycott the State of Israel?” The petition included 3,504 signatures, and on each page of the petition, the circulator certified that the signers were qualified electors and registered village voters. An objection was filed to the petition to challenge its validity and seeking to have the question not appear on the ballot. The objectors argued that the petition was invalid because it did not specifically attest that the signatures were "genuine." The village's electoral board held a hearing on the objection and voted to reject the objection, finding that the petition substantially complied with the requirements of the Election Code. The circuit court upheld the electoral board's decision, and the objectors appealed to the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court agreed with the electoral board that the petition substantially complied with the Election Code. The Court held that the omission of a statement that the signatures "are genuine" was a technical violation of the Election Code but not one that would "impair election integrity," particularly where the objectors provided no evidence that any of the 3,504 signatures were inauthentic and there was other language in the petition that demonstrated substantial compliance with the Election Code. As a result, the Court found the referendum petition to be valid. 

Read More

Lawsuit Against Village Relating to Property Development Was Properly Dismissed

Lawsuit Against Village Relating to Property Development Was Properly Dismissed

  Tuesday, October 13, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

A property owner reached out to village officials about the procedures for building a structure on property in the village. He claims that a village trustee told him that he couldn't find any regulations that would deny or allow the project, and that he shouldn't worry about permits because the village wasn't issuing them and there was no current village employee to conduct inspections. Based on these conversations, the owner claimed the village approved his project and he began building the structure. He spent approximately $110,000 on materials and labor before he received a cease and desist letter from the village president. He was also served with a notice of fines owed to the village in the amount of $10,200 for violating the village's zoning ordinance. The owner filed a lawsuit against the village, arguing that the village was "equitably estopped" from enforcing its zoning ordinance based on the village trustee's assurances to him that the project could proceed (Count 1), and seeking money damages for the work he performed on the structure (Count 2). The circuit court dismissed the case, finding that the village had immunity from the claims in the lawsuit. He appealed.

The Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit against the village, although on different grounds. First, the Court held that the Tort Immunity Act did not apply to Count 1 requesting injunctive relief based on an "equitable estoppel" argument and only applied to Count 2 requesting money damages. However, the Court determined that Count 1 was, nevertheless, properly dismissed because the complaint did not include any allegations that the village trustee who communicated with the owner had express authority to act on behalf of the village, a required element for an equitable estoppel claim. As a result, the lawsuit was properly dismissed. Baum v. Village of Viola.

Read More

Court Upholds Termination of Hospital Pharmacist Who Refused Vaccine

Court Upholds Termination of Hospital Pharmacist Who Refused Vaccine

  Wednesday, October 07, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a county's termination of a county employee after she refused to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine as required by the county's pandemic policy in Mason v. Cook County.

In August of 2021, the county adopted a policy mandating that county hospital staff members receive the COVID-19 vaccine. A hospital pharmacist applied for an exemption from the vaccine mandate based on her Christian faith. The county denied her request, stating that doing so would compromise workplace safety and pose an undue hardship on the county. The county gave her 90 days to comply. When she refused to do so, she was fired, and she filed a lawsuit against the county claiming that the county violated her civil rights in not accommodating her religious beliefs. The district court ruled in favor of the county, finding that allowing the employee to work unvaccinated during a public health crisis would have jeopardized the health of county staff and patients, causing undue hardship on the county.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the county had sufficiently shown an undue hardship that justified denial of the religious accommodation. The Court noted that the employee worked as a pharmacist in a hospital setting and worked in the same room with other pharmacist, and regularly interacted with patients where the risks and consequences of spreading the COVID-19 virus were high, and that masking and social distancing alone did not adequately reduce those risks.  

Read More

PAC Says Incident Reports Should Have Been Released

PAC Says Incident Reports Should Have Been Released

  Tuesday, October 06, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General's office (PAC) issued its 11th binding opinion for 2026 finding a public body in violation of FOIA when it denied a request for jail incident reports where those records could have been redacted and released. PAC Op. 26-011.

A reporter submitted a FOIA request to a sheriff's office seeking incident reports at a county jail relating to the use of restraint chairs. The sheriff's office denied the request in its entirety, citing to the personal privacy and private information exemptions of FOIA. The reporter filed an appeal with the PAC arguing that the sheriff's office had previously provided the same types of records with identifying information of the detainees redacted and that the sheriff's office should have released redacted records in response to this request. 

The PAC analyzed the "invasion of personal privacy" claim of the sheriff's office based on the following four factors:

(l) the requester's interest in disclosure, 

(2) the public interest in disclosure, 

(3) the degree of invasion of personal privacy, and 

(4) the availability of alternative means of obtaining the requested information.

The PAC applied the four factors and determined that the public's and requester's interest in the disclosure of records that shed light on law enforcement officials performing their official duties outweighed any privacy interests since the names of the detainees could have been redacted to protect the detainees' identities before the records were released. As a result, the PAC determined that the records should have been released with all identifying information of the detainees redacted.

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 110: Statement of Economic Interests

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 110: Statement of Economic Interests

  Monday, October 05, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink released Quorum Forum Podcast Episode 110: Statement of Economic Interests.

Back by listener request, the podcast is taking a brief recess to revisit one of its classic episodes on Statements of Economic Interests (SOEI) for local government officials and candidates. Ancel Glink’s Daniel J. Bolin and Keri-Lyn J. Krafthefer break down the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act reporting questions, clear up common misconceptions about disclosable assets and debts, and offer practical guidance for local officials and employees.

Candidates running in the 2027 consolidated elections must file an SOEI and submit their receipt alongside nomination papers during the candidate petition filing period. While incumbent officials may have filed an annual statement earlier this year in relation to their current office, many choose or are advised to file an additional statement explicitly in relation to their candidacy.

Inflation-Adjusted Thresholds: On this year’s form, disclosable dollar thresholds have been updated for Question 1 (Single Assets:  $11,600), Question 2 (Outside Income/Capital Gains;  $8,700), Question 3 (Single Non-Public Debts:  $11,600), and Question 6 (Gifts/Honoraria :  $600).

Episode Breakdown:

Who Must File:  Understanding filing obligations for elected/appointed local officials versus designated public employees and candidates.

Question 1 (Assets):  Distinguishing disclosable single assets (stocks, bonds, investment real estate) from explicitly excluded personal items like primary residences, personal vehicles, savings/checking accounts, retirement funds, and pensions.

Question 2 (Income; Capital Gains): How to simplify your disclosure by relying directly on your federal income tax return (W-2s, 1099s, capital gains) while excluding compensation from your filing position.

Question 3 (Debts):  How standard consumer debts (mortgages, credit cards, auto loans from financial institutions) are excluded from reporting.

Question 4 (Government Employment; Contracts):  Disclosing other units of government where you or your spouse serve as an employee, officeholder, or contractor.

Question 5 (Lobbyist Relationships):  Identifying disclosable business relationships or family members known to be registered lobbyists.

Question 6 (Gifts; Honoraria):  Reporting disclosable sources of gifts or honoraria.

Question 7 (Public Utilities): Disclosing family members employed by non-governmental public utilities.

Practical Tips:  Safe harbor protections for good-faith filings, relying on Illinois Secretary of State guidance, and handling county clerk online portals

 Resources: Secretary of State Guidance

Read More

Court Says Pension Should Have Been Calculated Based on Promotion Rank

Court Says Pension Should Have Been Calculated Based on Promotion Rank

  Wednesday, September 30, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court held that a pension board erred in awarding a line-of-duty disability pension based on a firefighter's salary rather than a lieutenant's salary in Schneider v. Elgin Firefighters' Pension Fund.

A firefighter employed by a city's fire department injured his back while responding to a call. He was unable to return to duty and applied for a disability pension. During the time between his injury and the pension board hearing, the city had promoted him from the rank of firefighter to lieutenant. The pension board awarded him a pension based on a firefighter's salary and he appealed to the circuit court, arguing that his pension should have been based on a lieutenant's salary. The circuit court upheld the pension board's decision. He then appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.

On appeal, the pension board argued that it determined the pension award based on the firefighter having been injured while serving as a firefighter, having received workers' compensation benefits based on his firefighter salary, having never worked or qualified for work as a lieutenant, and having never contributed to the pension fund at the lieutenant rank. As a result, the board had concluded that the firefighter rank was the rank "held" at the time he was removed from payroll for purposes of determining his pensionable salary.

The firefighter argued that section 4-110 of the Pension Coe requires a line-of-duty disability pension to be calculated based on the "monthly salary attached to the rank held...at the date [the firefighter] is removed from the municipality's fire department payroll" and that since he was a sworn lieutenant at the time he was removed from the fire department's payroll, his pension should be based on that rank.

The Appellate Court agreed with the firefighter, finding that he had been promoted to lieutenant before he was removed from the fire department's payroll and, as a result, he should have been awarded a line-of-duty disability pension based on the lieutenant salary since that is the rank he held on the payroll-removal date.

Read More

Dual Circulation Prohibition Not Apply to Nonpartisan School Board Candidates

Dual Circulation Prohibition Not Apply to Nonpartisan School Board Candidates

  Tuesday, September 29, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld a decision by a board of election commissioners that school board candidates did not violate the Election Code's prohibition on dual circulation in collecting signatures for an election involving non-partisan candidates. Sanchez v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

Objections were filed to the nominating petitions submitted by certain candidates running for elected school board positions in the upcoming November 2026 election. The objections claimed that the candidates had violated the "dual circulation" prohibition of the Election Code because circulators who collected signatures for the candidates had also circulated petitions for partisan candidates in the primary election in March of 2026. The objection was heard by the board of election commissioners which denied the objections. The objectors appealed to the circuit court which upheld the board's decision and the case made its way to the Illinois Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court first examined the relevant statute, which states as follows:

[N]o person shall circulate or certify petitions for candidates of more than one political party, or for an independent candidate or candidates in addition to one political party, to be voted upon at the next primary or general election, or for such candidates and parties with respect to the same political subdivision at the next consolidated election. 10 ILCS 5/10- 4. 

The candidates argued that the dual circulation prohibition of this statute applies only to candidates of political parties and independents, but does not apply to nonpartisan candidates. Because the school board candidates were nonpartisan candidates, the candidates argued that the statute did not bar circulators who had previously circulated petitions for partisan candidates in the primary election. The Appellate Court agreed, finding that the clear language of the statute only applied to partisan and independent elections and the school board election was, by statute, nonpartisan. As a result, the petitions circulated by the challenged circulators were proper and the candidates were not barred from running for office.

Read More