City Could Withhold Employment Taxes from PEDA Benefits

City Could Withhold Employment Taxes from PEDA Benefits

  Friday, September 19, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion this week finding that the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act (commonly referred to as PEDA), does not prohibit a city from withholding employment taxes from payments made under the PEDA statute. Bitner v. City of Pekin.

Two former police officers had applied for and were granted PEDA benefits after they were injured in the line of duty. PEDA provides that eligible employees who suffer an injury in the line of duty that causes them to be unable to perform their duties are entitled to be paid by their employer on the same basis as before their injury for a period up to a year. PEDA also states that no deduction can be made for sick leave credits, compensatory time for overtime accumulations or vacation, or service credits in a pension fund while the employee is receiving PEDA benefits. The officers filed a lawsuit, claiming that PEDA prohibited the city from withholding employment taxes (federal and state income taxes, social security taxes, and Medicare taxes) from their PEDA benefits. The trial court ruled in favor of the officers, but on appeal, the appellate court ruled in favor of the city, and the officers appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois Supreme Court analyzed the language of section 1(b) of PEDA, and determined that there was no express language prohibiting an employer from withholding employment taxes, unlike the express prohibition in PEDA for leave deductions. The Court also held that the officers failed to provide any evidence that PEDA payments were exempt from federal income tax, and did not point to any statute or IRS ruling that prohibits a government employer from withholding taxes from PEDA payments. As a result, the Court held that employees receiving PEDA benefits could seek a refund or adjust their tax withholding to address the tax issue, rather than requiring employers to determine whether an employee has or does not have a tax liability. In sum, the Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of the city, holding that PEDA did not prohibit the city from withholding employment taxes from the PEDA benefits paid to the two officers. 

Read More

Court Remands Challenge to Fast Track Demolition to Circuit Court

Court Remands Challenge to Fast Track Demolition to Circuit Court

  Thursday, September 18, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court issued an opinion in a case involving a municipality's use of a "fast track" demolition to demolish a a building. JB Distribution Market of SLC v. City of Peoria.

A city filed an action in circuit court under Section 11-31-1(e) of the Illinois Municipal Code to obtain an order authorizing the demolition of a building that the city argued was in an unsafe condition. The circuit court issued the order, and the city hired a contractor to demolish the building. The owner of the building filed a lawsuit asking the court to enjoin the city from demolition activities. The owner argued it was entitled to relief under the statute based on language that entitles an owner to a "stay" of demolition if the owner files a complaint before the municipality proceeds with the demolition activities authorized by the statute. The city argued its contractor had already proceeded with demolition activities, precluding relief under the statute. The circuit court agreed, and ruled in favor of the city and dismissed the complaint.

If, however, before the municipality proceeds with any of the actions authorized by this subsection, any person with a legal or equitable interest in the property has sought a hearing under this subsection before a court and has served a copy of the complaint on the chief executive officer of the municipality, then the municipality shall not proceed with the demolition, repair, enclosure, or removal of garbage, debris, or other substances until the court determines that that action is necessary to remedy the hazard and issues an order authorizing the municipality to do so. 65 ILCS 5/11-31-1(e)

On appeal, the Appellate Court disagreed with the circuit court's ruling, finding that it was not clear whether installation of fencing and asbestos testing was sufficient to start the process of demolition, and sent the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Read More

Court Rules in Favor of Park District In Tree Stump Injury Lawsuit

Court Rules in Favor of Park District In Tree Stump Injury Lawsuit

  Wednesday, September 17, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled in favor of a park district in a lawsuit filed by a person injured when she fell on a tree stump on property owned by the park district. The injury occurred at a park owned by the park district, in an area directly behind the plaintiff's family member's home. The plaintiff was playing badminton that her family member had set up on park district property. In her lawsuit against the park district, she claimed the park district was liable for her injury because it occurred on park district land. The park district countered that the Tort Immunity Act applied to defeat her claims, arguing that the plaintiff was neither an intended nor permitted user of the property, and the tree stump condition and risk were "open and obvious." The circuit court ruled in favor of the park district, and the case was appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the ruling in favor of the park district. First, the Appellate Court determined that the park district had enacted an ordinance that restricted games and sports in designated areas only, and the open space area located behind the home where the injury occurred was not a designated area for sports such as badminton. As a result, the plaintiff was not an intended user of that area when she was playing badminton. Second, the Appellate Court noted that the photos taken of the area showed that the tree stump condition was open and obvious and, as a result, she should have recognized the danger and taken care to avoid risk. Third, the Appellate Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the park district's conduct was "willful and wanton" as the park district had received no complaints about the tree stump, and the area where it was located was not a high traffic area. Wright v. Gurnee Park District.

Read More

Court Rules in Favor of County Board on OMA Challenge

Court Rules in Favor of County Board on OMA Challenge

  Thursday, September 11, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

A former county employee filed a lawsuit against a county board claiming the board violated various provisions of the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Specifically, the former employee claimed the county board improperly held three closed sessions to discuss his employment, which later led to his termination. He claimed that the county board failed to cite a statutory exemption before going into closed session and that the board did not have a quorum present at the meetings because they were held remotely. The former employee also claimed the county board failed to conduct timely semi-annual reviews of the board's closed session meeting minutes. He requested that the court order the board to comply with the OMA, release the minutes from the three closed sessions at issue, and award him costs and attorneys fees.

The county board filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on several grounds, including that some of his claims were moot and that his complaint was untimely because it was not filed within 60 days of the meetings at issue. The board also argued that his claims were the subject of previous lawsuits brought by the former employee and were, therefore, barred by res judicata. Finally, the board filed a motion for sanctions against the former employee for filing frivolous claims against the county.

The trial court ruled in the county's favor and dismissed the lawsuit. The court determined that the claims were barred by "res judicata" because they had already been decided in two previous cases. The court also found the OMA claims to be time-barred because they were not filed within 60 days of the meetings at issue, and that some of his claims were moot because the county board had resolved those claims. The court also ruled in favor of the county on its motion for sanctions, finding that the current lawsuit was frivolous because the former employee brought claims that had already been adjudicated, and ordered the former employee to pay the county $43,305.50.

The former employee appealed, and the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the case, finding that the OMA claims were not timely filed, some of the claims were moot, and all claims were barred by res judicata because they had been previously adjudicated. The Appellate Court rejected the former employee's argument that the OMA allowed a plaintiff to file a lawsuit within 60 days of discovering the OMA violation, holding that the "discovery rule" only applies to discovery of a violation of the OMA by the States Attorney. The Court also found that the former employee's claims that the county board failed to conduct its semi-annual review of closed session meeting minutes to be moot because the county board had since conducted a review. The Court also rejected the former employee's argument that the trial court erred when it did not conduct an "in camera" review of the closed session meeting minutes, finding that a review of the minutes was not necessary for the trial court to resolve the case on the county's motion to dismiss. Finally, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's award of sanctions but remanded the case back to the trial court to review the basis for its award. Dorman v. Madison County Board.

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 96: Artifical Intelligence v Alex Intelligence

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 96: Artifical Intelligence v Alex Intelligence

  Monday, September 08, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

On the latest episode of Ancel Glink’s Quorum Forum podcast, Ancel Glink Attorneys Dan Bolin and Alex Cambiazo put legal analysis to the test in "Artificial Intelligence v. AlexIntelligence!" Dan plays AI-generated summaries of recent, critical cases affecting local governments and employers, and Alex provides expert insights, corrections, and key takeaways from her own legal summaries. 

Cases Discussed:

• Undercover Officer Misconduct: Veronica Hinton v. The City of Chicago; Matthew O. Bryant; John Doe – Clarifying when an officer’s private actions fall "under color of state law" and the implications for municipal liability.

• Municipal Impoundment Fees: Matthew E. Carter v. The City of Alton – Examining the constitutionality of administrative fees for vehicle impoundment related to criminal offenses and the importance of administrative remedies.

• FOIA & Body Camera Footage: NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. The Chicago Police Department and The Office of Emergency Management and Communications – Understanding law enforcement exemptions under FOIA and the "reasonable expectation of privacy" for body camera recordings of victims and witnesses.

• Employment Discrimination: Kara Mitchell v. Exxon Mobil Corporation – Highlighting the importance of clear, consistent, and well-documented performance review systems in defending against sex discrimination claims.

Also in this Episode:

• A Public Comment segment addressing school flyers and free speech limitations in limited public forums, drawing on E.D. v. Noblesville School District.

• The Department of Public Works discusses Ancel Glink's presence and sessions at the APA-IL State Conference.

Read More

Municipal Minute Turns 14

Municipal Minute Turns 14

  Friday, September 05, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

On September 3, 2011, Municipal Minute published its first blog post called "Tweeting into Trouble?" At that time, Municipal Minute had two followers and they both worked at Ancel Glink! 14 years, 2,463 posts, and more than 3.3 million visits later, Municipal Minute is still going strong, providing timely updates on new laws, cases, and other topics of interest to local government officials and employees. A big thank you to all of our Municipal Minute followers and readers - your passion for local government is an inspiration to us, and we appreciate your continued readership.

Read More

Local Grocery Tax Filing Reminder

Local Grocery Tax Filing Reminder

  Thursday, September 04, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Just a quick reminder to those municipalities or counties that have adopted or are considering adopting an ordinance imposing the 1% local grocery tax that was authorized by the Illinois General Assembly after the legislature repealed the state grocery tax, that a certified copy of the grocery tax ordinance must be filed with the Illinois Department of Revenue no later than October 1, 2025 in order for the tax to take effect on January 1, 2026, and the revenue stream to continue. P.A. 103-0871.

Read More

Public Body Properly Withheld Construction Plans under FOIA

Public Body Properly Withheld Construction Plans under FOIA

  Wednesday, September 03, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In response to a FOIA request seeking records related to a proposed commercial solar facility, a county land use department (department) disclosed certain records, but withheld two construction-related technical documents submitted to the department by a special use applicant pursuant to Section 7(1)(k) of FOIA. The requester subsequently submitted a request for review to the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (PAC) claiming the department improperly withheld the construction-related technical documents, because the department did not show that disclosing them would compromise security.

In its 12th binding opinion of 2025, the PAC determined that the department properly withheld the two construction-related technical documents pursuant to FOIA. PAC Op. 25-012. The PAC clarified that Section 7(1)(k) of FOIA exempts two categories of records: (1) architects' plans, engineers' technical submissions, and other construction related technical documents for projects not constructed or developed in whole or in part with public funds; and (2) the same records for projects constructed or developed with public funds, but only to the extent that disclosure would compromise security.

In this case, the withheld documents were construction-related technical documents commissioned by the private company, and no public funds were used to construct or develop the project, so these records were per se exempt from disclosure under the plain language of Section 7(1)(k). The PAC rejected the requester’s argument that the department could not withhold the records without demonstrating that there disclosure would compromise security, because the “compromise security” language only applies to projects constructed or developed in whole or in part with public funds, which was not the case here.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Read More

Court Rejects Claim that Roadway was Dedicated to Township

Court Rejects Claim that Roadway was Dedicated to Township

  Tuesday, September 02, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

A lot owner in a partially completed subdivision sued a township, claiming that the township was legally responsible for maintaining and controlling a road that provided access to the owner's lot. The lot owner also sued the owner of the remaining lots in the subdivision alleging that she interfered with his access by placing a locked gate on the road. The trial court dismissed the case against both defendants, and the lot owner appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.

On appeal, the Appellate Court determined that the lot owner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the standard for establishing that the road at issue was, in fact, dedicated to the township. The Court acknowledged that the subdivision plat provided sufficient evidence of "donative intent" (i.e., that the parties intended that the road be dedicated to the township as a public road) but there was no evidence to support the lot owner's argument that the road dedication was actually accepted by the township. As a result, the Court determined that the trial court properly dismissed the claims against the township, finding that the road was not dedicated to the township as a public road, so the township had no responsibility over the road.

As for the claims against the subdivision owner, the Appellate Court reversed the dismissal, finding that the lot owner sufficiently alleged that the subdivision owner interfered with his rights to access his lot through the road by installing a gate or other barricade, and those claims could proceed at the trial court.

Apps v. Crete Township Highway Commissioner

Read More