A police officer who suffered an injured knee during a traffic stop, and claimed that he had continuing pain and reduced functioning after undergoing two surgical procedures was properly denied both a line-of-duty disability pension and a not-in-duty disability pension. A functional capacity evaluation (FCE) evaluator presented a comprehensive report documenting that the officer was able to perform his job functions at a medium physical demand level, with only some limitations on lifting and carrying. The pension board properly relied on that report, and on the opinion of a doctor who reviewed the report and agreed with its conclusion that the injured employee could continue to function as a police officer. Goodman v. Morton Grove Police Pension Board, #1-11-1480, 2012 Ill. App. Lexis 87, 2012 IL App (1st) 111480, (1st Dist.).
     Fifth Circuit holds that the United States may garnish a sheriff's retirement benefits to satisfy a criminal restitution order, but only up to 25% the monthly benefits. In the case of a full redemption of paid-in contributions, the entire amount is subject to seizure. U.S. v. De Cay (La. Sheriffs Pension Fund), #09-30218, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19522 (5th Cir.).
    In an action claiming that a city breached its obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to make contributions to the fund, the city could not seek dismissal on the ground that a bargaining agreement called for binding arbitration. The CBA did not empower the city to initiate arbitration. Dugan v. City of W. Chicago v. Int. Union, etc., #08 C 2223, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22110 (N.D. Ill.).
     Florida pension trustees file a class action lawsuit in N.Y. City, claiming that a major insurance and financial services firm artificially inflated its share prices and concealed risky investments, resulting in investor asset losses. Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund v. American International Group, #1:2008cv04772, Complaint, Pacer Doc. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
    City of San Diego agrees to settle a pension underfunding lawsuit for $173 million; funds to come, in part, from a tobacco settlement. McGuigan v. City of San Diego, #GIC 849883, 44 (2162) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 657, 33 Pension & Benef. Rep. (BNA) 1446 (Cal. Super. Ct 2006). {N/R}
     In two cases, Illinois appellate courts hold that a convicted police officer and a judge were only entitled to a refund of their pension contributions, less the amounts paid to them prior to their convictions. In the case of the officer, the prior benefits paid had exceeded the amount of his contributions. Shields v. Bd. of Tr. of Judge's Retirement System, #1-00-4133, 329 Ill.App.3d 27, 768 N.E.2d 26, 2001 Ill. App. Lexis 826 and Phelan v. LaGrange Park Police Pension Fund, #1-01-1226, 327 Ill.App.3d 527, 763 N.E.2d 343, 2001 Ill. App. Lexis1483 (Released 2002). An appeal before the IL Supreme Court is pending in the Shields case, Docket # 94029 (10/01/2002). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court allows cities to appropriate "excess" funding from fire and police pension funds. Koster v. City of Davenport, # 98-1459, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 15030, 183 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. July 7, 1999). [1999 FP 135]
     Federal Courts in Illinois rules that a police pension fund is a covered entity under A.D.A. Court also declines to dismiss the city as a co-defendant. Holmes v. Aurora, 3 AD Cases (BNA) 23 (N.D.Ill. 1993) and 4 AD Cases 967 and 4 AD Cases 1781 (N.D.Ill. 1995). See also: Deertz v. Chicago, 912 F.Supp. 319 (N.D.Ill. 1995) and Piquard v. Peoria, 887 F.Supp. 1106 (E.D.Ill. 1995). [1994 FP 76]
     Article: ADA pension litigation certain to rise against police and fire depts., 34 (1664) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 679-680 (May 1996).
     Firefighter lawfully denied a pension following his arson conspiracy conviction, even though he would have been entitled to a pension if convicted of a non duty-related offense. Parente v. Town of West Warwick, 685 F.Supp. 873 (D. R.I. 1988).
     New York's highest court rules that part-time public employees are entitled to pension benefits unless the law which establishes the pension fund specifically excludes them. Doctors Council v. N. Y. City Emplees. Ret. Sys., 71 N.Y.2d 669, 525 N.E.2d 454 (1988).
     Editor's Note: Most "pensions" are either "ordinary" or "disability" benefits. Ordinary retirements (non duty-related) are discussed under Retirement Rights and Pension. Duty-related systems are discussed under Disability Rights and Benefits, or Workmen's Compensation.
     See also: Age Discrimination, Disability Benefits & Rights, Handicap Laws & Abilities Discrimination; Light Duty Assignments (in lieu of pension), Retirement Benefits & Rights, and Stress-Related Claims & Defenses.