No. 117638 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS JERRY MATTHEWS, JERRY WILLIAMS, TOMMY SAMS, CYNTHIA BOYNE, and CHARLES BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v . THE CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a municipal corporation; RETIREMENT PLAN FOR CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES; RETIREE HEALTH CARE TRUST; and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE RETIREE HEALTH CARE TRUST, Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the Appellate Court of Illinois First Judicial District, No. 1-12-3348 There Heard on Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division, No. 11 CH 15446 The Honorable Franklin U. Valderamma, Judge Presiding AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE AND THE CITY OF CHICAGO STEPHEN R. PATTON Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago BENNA RUTH SOLOMON JANE ELINOR NOTZ Deputy Corporation Counsel ROGER HUEBNER MYRIAM ZRECZNY KASPER Deputy Executive Director Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel and General Counsel SARA K. HORNSTRA Illinois Municipal League Assistant Corporation Counsel 500 East Capitol Avenue 30 North LaSalle Street, Room 800 Springfield, Illinois 62701 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (217) 525-1220 (312) 744-7764 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES __________ Page(s) ARGUMENT. .................................................. 3 I. CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF PROMISES BY UNNAMED EMPLOYEES AND PAST ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT ASSURANCE THEY WILL CONTINUE ARE INSUFFICIENT TO STATE AN ESTOPPEL CLAIM AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY............. 3 Hickey v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 35 Ill. 2d 427 (1966)....................................... 3, 4 Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148......................................... 3, 4, 5 LaBolle v. Metropolitan Sanitary District, 253 Ill. App. 3d 269 (1st Dist. 1992). 3, 5 Halleck v. County of Cook, 264 Ill. App. 3d 887 (1st Dist. 1994). 3 Jack Bradley, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 146 Ill. 2d 61 (1991)......................................... 3 Newton Tractor Sales, Inc. v. Kubota Tractor Corp., 223 Ill. 2d 46 (2009)......................................... 5 Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2014 IL App (1st) 123348................................... 5, 6 A. Plaintiffs Failed To Plead Promissory Estoppel With The Specificity Required For An Estoppel Claim Against A Public Body................................ 6 Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148........................................... 7, 8 740 ILCS 80/1 (2014). ............................................ 9 McInerney v. Charter Golf, Inc., 176 Ill. 2d 482 (1997)........................................ 9 ii Ozier v. Haines, 411 Ill. 160 (1952)........................................... 9 Sinclair v. Sullivan Chevrolet Co., 31 Ill. 2d 507 (1964)......................................... 9 Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2014 IL App (1st) 123348..................................... 9 B. Estoppel Does Not Preclude A Municipality From Departing From A Prior Course Of Conduct Absent Express Assurances That The Conduct Will Continue..1 0 1. A course of conduct is not equivalent to a promise the conduct will continue............................ 1 0 Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2014 IL App (1st) 123348.................................... 1 0 Carey v. City of Rockford, 134 Ill. App. 3d 217 (2d Dist. 1985).. 11, 13 City of Chicago v. Unit One Corporation, 218 Ill. App. 3d 242 (1st Dist. 1991). 1 1 LaSalle National Bank v. City of Chicago, 128 Ill. App. 3d 656 (1st Dist. 1984). 1 1 Eisele v. Ayers, 63 Ill. App. 3d 1039 (1st Dist. 1978). 11, 12 Chicago Limousine Service, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 335 Ill. App. 3d 489 (1st Dist. 2002). 1 2 Village of B ellwood v. American National Bank & Trust Company of Chicago, 2011 IL App (1st) 093115.................................... 1 3 2. A course of conduct is not by itself an affirmative act of the municipality.............................. 1 3 McMahon v. City of Chicago, 339 Ill. App. 3d 41 (1st Dist. 2003). 1 4 iii Ad-Ex. Inc. v. City of Chicago, 207 Ill. App. 3d 163 (1st Dist. 1990). 1 4 Lindahl v. City of Des Plaines, 210 Ill. App. 3d 281 (1st Dist. 1991). 14, 15 Chicago Patrolmen’s Association v. City of Chicago, 56 Ill. 2d 503 (1974)........................................ 1 4 Schivarelli v. Chicago Transit Authority, 355 Ill. App. 3d 93 (1st Dist. 2005). 1 5 3. Estoppel does not protect against the loss of an advantage that a party had no right to receive in the first place.................................... 1 6 City of Chicago v. Unit One Corporation, 218 Ill. App. 3d 242 (1st Dist. 1991). 16, 17 Tyska v. Board of Education Township High School District 224, 117 Ill. App. 3d 917 (1st Dist. 1983). 1 7 McAdams v. Scullin, 53 Ill. App. 3d 374 (5th Dist. 1977). 1 7 Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2014 IL App (1st) 123348.................................... 1 7 II. A HOLDING THAT RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS CONFERRED UNDER A CBA ARE PRESUMPTIVELY VESTED WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE GREAT WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY, INCLUDING ORDINARY CONTRACT INTERPRETATION PRINCIPLES.............. 1 8 Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2014 IL App (1st) 123348................................. 18, 19 Marconi v. City of Joliet, 2013 IL App (3d) 110865.................................... 1 9 iv A. The Presumption Applied By The Appellate Court Is Out Of Step With The Federal Courts And Other State Courts.............................................. 2 0 Haake v. Board of Education, 399 Ill. App. 3d 121 (2d Dist. 2010).. 2 0 Marconi v. City of Joliet, 2013 IL App (3d) 110865................................ passim Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2014 IL App (1st) 123348.................................... 2 0 Cherry v. Auburn Gear, Inc., 441 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2006). ................................ 2 0 Bland v. Fiatallis North America, Inc., 401 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2005). ............................. 20, 22 Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., 217 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2000). ................................ 2 0 Roth v. City of Glendale, 614 N.W.2d 467 (Wis. 2000).................................. 2 0 Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp., 993 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1993). ................................ 2 0 UAW v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983). ............................ 20, 21 Litton Financial Printing Division v. National Labor Relations Board, 501 U.S. 190 (1991). ....................................... 2 1 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964). ....................................... 2 1 UAW v. Skinner Engine Co., 188 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 1999)............................ 21, 22, 25 Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 171 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 1999).................................. 2 1 v Lewis v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 2011 WL 6440873 (No. 11-2517, N.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2011). 2 2 American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO v. Int’l Multifoods Corp., 116 F.3d 976 (2d Cir. 1997).................................. 2 2 Senior v. NSTAR Electric and Gas Corp., 449 F.3d 206 (1st Cir. 2006)............................... 23, 25 Anderson v. Alpha Portland Industries, Inc., 836 F.2d 1512 (8th Cir. 1988). ............................... 2 3 Gable v. Sweetheart Cup Co., 35 F.3d 851 (4th Cir. 1994). ................................. 2 3 Wise v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 986 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1993). ................................ 2 3 Tackett v. M&G Polymers USA, LLC, 733 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2013). ................................ 2 3 Municipality of Anchorage v. Gentile, 922 P.2d 248 (Alaska 1996). ................................ 2 4 Poole v. City of Waterbury, 831 A.2d 211 (Conn. 2003)................................... 2 4 Anderson v. Town of Smithfield, 2005 WL 3481627 (R.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 20, 2005).. 24, 26 Davis v. Wilson County, 70 S.W.3d 724 (Tenn. 2002)............................... 24, 26 Navlet v. Port of Seattle, 194 P.3d 221 (Wash. 2008)................................... 2 4 Washington Education Association v. Washington Dept. of Retirement Systems, 332 P.3d 439 (Wash. 2014).................................. 2 4 Moore v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 856 F.2d 488 (2d Cir. 1988).................................. 2 5 vi Inter-Modal Rail Employees Ass’n v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 520 U.S. 510 (1997). ....................................... 2 5 Coram v. State, 2013 IL 113867............................................ 2 6 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 216 Ill. 2d 569 (2005)....................................... 2 6 Reese v. CNH America LLC, 574 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 2009). ................................ 2 6 Maurer v. Joy Technologies, Inc., 212 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 2000). ................................ 2 6 B. A Presumption In Favor Of Vesting Is Contrary To Ordinary Principles Of Contract Law And Is Otherwise Unjustified............................... 2 7 Thompson v. Gordon, 241 Ill. 2d 428 (2011).................................... 27, 29 Air Safety, Inc. v. Teachers Realty Corp., 185 Ill. 2d 457 (1999)....................................... 2 7 Gallagher v. Lenart, 226 Ill. 2d 208 (2007).................................... 27, 31 Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010). ....................................... 2 7 Bland v. Fiatallis North America, Inc., 401 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2005). ................................ 2 7 Woods v. City