Pension Board's Denial of Pension Application Vacated Due to Bias
After a fire lieutenant with a
fire protection district (District) was denied a disability pension by the Pension Board, she sued
the Board claiming that she did not receive a fair hearing due to alleged
bias by some members on the Board. The trial court upheld the Board’s decision
to deny the pension application, but on appeal, that decision was reversed and the case was
sent back with directions to hold a new hearing. Naden
v. The Firefighters’ Pension Fund of the Sugar Grove Fire Protection District,
2017 IL App. (2d) 160698 (November 17, 2017).
Naden had been employed by the
District since 1996. In 2014, she
requested a medical leave of absence. In
her request, she noted several instances of sexual harassment. The District initiated an investigation into
the sexual harassment claims, but it never concluded. Naden did not return to
work following her approved leave, and applied for pension benefits. The Board denied her application, and determined she was not eligible to
receive either a line-of-duty or a non-duty pension.
On appeal, Naden argued she did
not receive a fair hearing before the Pension Board because three of the five
members of the Board were also the firefighters she accused of sexually
harassing her during her employment. In addressing Naden’s allegations of bias
on the part of the Board, the appellate court noted that “a personal interest
or bias can be pecuniary or any other interest that may have an effect on the
impartiality of the decisionmaker.” Because the District never concluded its
investigation, the appellate court found there was “something of a running
controversy between the Plaintiff and the three members” and that where there
is an actual incentive for bias, recusal is required. The appellate court concluded
that because each of the three board members named by Naden had a material, direct,
personal interest in denying her disability claim, their bias
rendered the Board’s decision unsustainable. It vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case with instructions
to the Board to hold a new hearing on Naden’s application for disability
benefits.
Post Authored by Jessi DeWalt, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment