18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

388 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition $575 million and also change several practices including limiting patient charges for out-of-network services, increasing transparency in billing, pricing, and cost information, increasing the availability of lower cost options, and allowing options for increased hospital accessibility. The Court determined that the proposed settlement was well within the range for which final approval could be granted, and thereby ruled that notice to the class was warranted. For these reasons, the Court granted preliminary settlement approval. (iii) Illinois Hanover Park v. Board of Trustees of Hanover Park Police Pension Fund, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 278 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. May 28, 2021). Plaintiff, the Village of Hanover Park (“Village”), brought an action challenging the administrative decision of Defendant, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Hanover Park Police Pension Fund “(“Board”), finding that holiday pay under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the Village and Defendant Metropolitan Alliance of Police Chapter 102 (“MAP”), was pensionable salary for purposes of calculating pension benefits of the officers. The trial court affirmed the decision of the Board and agreed that holiday pay under the CBA was pensionable salary for purposes of calculating pension benefits. The Village then appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court challenging the trial court’s ruling the affirmed the Board’s decision. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the ruling of the trial court. The Appellate Court held that the trial court’s ruling was manifestly erroneous because the evidence before the Board conclusively established that holiday pay under the CBA was not "fixed" compensation as defined in § 4402.30 of Title 50 of the Illinois Administrative Code. As a threshold matter, the Appellate Court rejected the Village’s argument that the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the controversy because the 35-day deadline for commencing an action to review a final administrative decision had passed. The Appellate Court reasoned that a party who has not initiated timely administrative review may still challenge a pension board’s action where the party challenging the systematic miscalculation can point to a specific rule, regulation, standard, or statement of policy from the pension board itself. The Appellate Court thereafter turned to the crux of the issue on appeal of whether holiday pay under article 6 of the CBA is “fixed” compensation. The Appellate Court opined that this question was paramount because the applicable statutory and regulatory authority made clear that if police officer compensation is not "fixed," it is not "salary" for pension purposes. Id. at *8. Here, the Appellate Court found that holiday pay under article 6 of the CBA plainly was not “fixed,” since it is not in a predetermined amount that can be determined through an examination of the appropriation ordinance, plans or agreements establishing salary. In issuing its ruling, the Appellate Court looked to § 6.3, which established certain eligibility requirements that a police officer must meet to in order to receive holiday pay. The Appellate Court opined that under a plain and ordinary reading of § 6.3, unless an officer’s absence is excused and is chargeable to an authorized paid leave, a police patrol officer is ineligible for holiday pay for a holiday if he or she fails to work both: (i) their last full scheduled workday before the observed holiday; and (ii) their first full scheduled workday after the observed holiday. Moreover, police patrol officers who are suspended, on a disability in excess of six months, or on a pension or other inactive payroll status are ineligible to receive holiday pay. As such, the Appellate Court determined that the Board’s determination that holiday pay under the specific CBA at issue was pensionable was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment that had affirmed the Board’s decision. (iv) Maryland Cherry, et al. v. Mayor Of Baltimore, 2021 Md. LEXIS 379 (Md. App. Aug. 16, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of police officers and firefighters, filed a class action after the City of Baltimore enacted Ordinance 10-306, which changed some of the key terms of the Baltimore’s Fire and Police Employees’ Retirement System (the "Plan") that provided pension benefits to uniformed officers in the City’s police and fire departments. Most notably, Ordinance 10-306 replaced a variable post-retirement cost-of-living adjustment that was based entirely on the investment performance of Plan assets with a guaranteed, tiered cost-of-living adjustment that was not market- driven. The trial court certified a class of Plaintiffs and three subclasses, including: (i) Plan members who retired from service before the enactment of Ordinance 10-306 (the "Retired Subclass"); (ii) currently employed members who had reached eligibility to retire but who had not yet retired (the "Retirement-Eligible Subclass"); and (iii) currently employed members who had not yet reached retirement eligibility (the "Active Subclass"). After a bench trial, the trial court ruled that the City breached its contract with the Retired and Retirement-Eligible Subclasses because Ordinance 10-306 retrospectively divested the members of those subclasses of benefits