{ "id": 2990377, "name": "HARVEY FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION et al., Appellees, v. THE CITY OF HARVEY et al., Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Harvey Firemen's Ass'n v. City of Harvey", "decision_date": "1979-01-26", "docket_number": "No. 50291", "first_page": "358", "last_page": "367", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "75 Ill. 2d 358" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5456767 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/69/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 Ill. App. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5012251 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39, 41" }, { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/339/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ill. App. 2d 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5256013 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "108-09" }, { "page": "109" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/38/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Ill. App. 2d 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5272852 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" }, { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/48/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 Ill. App. 2d 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8499142 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "175" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/88/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ill. 2d 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5358977 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "360" }, { "page": "360" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ill. 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4727951 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/259/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 Ill. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3359340 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/216/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 Ill. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3338810 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/222/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2897157 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/45/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "405 Ill. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2626738 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "343" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/405/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 Ill. App. 2d 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2909968, 2904075 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/131/0374-01", "/ill-app-2d/131/0374-02" ] }, { "cite": "7 U.S.F.L. Rev. 508", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "U.S.F. L. Rev.", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 St. Louis U.L.J. 214", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "St. Louis U. L.J.", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Emory L.J. 447", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Emory L.J.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 N.W.2d 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "383 Mich. 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1920679 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/383/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 N.W.2d 592", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 Mich. App. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich. App.", "case_ids": [ 2120056 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich-app/62/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 F. Supp. 492", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 5702885 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/338/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "414 F. Supp. 998", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3871757 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/414/0998-01" ] }, { "cite": "529 F.2d 625", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10591957 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/529/0625-01" ] }, { "cite": "424 U.S. 645", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12027238 ], "weight": 6, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/424/0645-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3399914 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/54/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5809328 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "551" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/68/0540-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ill. 2d 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2937381 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "288" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/55/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "405 Ill. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2626738 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "343" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/405/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3399914 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23-24" }, { "page": "24" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/54/0021-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 646, "char_count": 13905, "ocr_confidence": 0.888, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.296898572226412e-07, "percentile": 0.9581743954956448 }, "sha256": "96951a5d3756a444bd6361b9cb5f83657433a47d8642291b63240f725b4acad9", "simhash": "1:09d2763936ac4c70", "word_count": 2285 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:27.518253+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "HARVEY FIREMEN\u2019S ASSOCIATION et al., Appellees, v. THE CITY OF HARVEY et al., Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE WARD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiffs, the Harvey Firemen\u2019s Association, Local 471 of the International Association of Firefighters-, and several employees of the fire department of the city of Harvey brought suit against the city of Harvey, its civil service commission, and certain city officials and commission members seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the rule of the Harvey civil service commission requiring residency within the city of classified city employees is invalid. The trial court held the rule was within the authority of the commission and valid, but the appellate court reversed (54 Ill. App. 3d 21) on an interlocutory appeal (58 Ill. 2d R. 308). We granted the defendants\u2019 petition for leave to appeal (58 Ill. 2d R. 315). The question as framed on the interlocutory appeal was:\n\u201cWhether the Civil Service Commission for the City of Harvey, Illinois, has the power, express or implied, to adopt a rule requiring civil service employees of the City of Harvey, Illinois, to reside within its corporate limits as a condition of continued employment?\u201d\nThe plaintiffs do not dispute the constitutionality, in general, of residency requirements for civil servants (see McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Com. (1976), 424 U.S. 645, 47 L. Ed. 2d 366, 96 S. Ct. 1154); nor do they deny the authority of the city of Harvey to enact such an ordinance. Their contention is that there is no grant of authority, express or implied, in the commission\u2019s enabling statute, article 10, division 1 (\u201cCivil Service in Cities\u201d) of the Illinois Municipal Code (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 10\u20141\u20141 et seq.) that permits the commission itself to require residency of employees in the city of Harvey.\nHarvey\u2019s civil service system was adopted November 3, 1942, by a citizen referendum pursuant to section 38 of \u201cAn Act to regulate the civil service of cities\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1941, ch. 24\u00bd, par. 76). (The same provision in amended form is now contained within section 10\u20141\u201443 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 10-1-13).) A city enabling ordinance, enacted on January 18, 1943, transferred to the jurisdiction of the newly authorized commission \u201call offices and places of employment of the City,\u201d except for certain positions not relevant here. On January 22, 1944, the Harvey commission adopted \u201cRules of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Harvey, Illinois,\u201d Rule VI, section 4 of which states:\n\u201cRemoval from City. Removal from the City of Harvey shall be cause for the discharge of any person in the Classified Service; excepting, however, such cases as come within Section 3 of Rule III.\u201d (The exceptions are not concerned here.)\nThere have been holdings in other jurisdictions which have upheld various types of public employees continuing residency requirements, some of which are cited by the defendants supporting their contention. Those decisions, however, turned on the constitutionality of the involved statute, charter, ordinance or rule and did not involve the specific question here of authority to promulgate such a rule. See, for example, McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Com. (1976), 424 U.S. 645, 47 L. Ed. 2d 366, 96 S. Ct. 1154; Wardwell v. Board of Education (6th Cir. 1976), 529 F.2d 625; Miller v. Krawczyk (E.D. Wis. 1976), 414 F. Supp. 998; Krzewinski v. Kugler (D.N.J. 1972), 338 F. Supp. 492; Park v. Lansing Board of Education (1975), 62 Mich. App. 397, 233 N.W.2d 592; Williams v. Civil Service Com. (1970), 383 Mich. 507, 176 N.W.2d 593. Also see generally Hayford & Durkee, Residency Requirements in Local Government Employment: The Impact of the Public Employer\u2019s Duty to Bargain, 29 Labor L.J. 343 (1978); Comment, The Constitutionality of Residency Requirements for Municipal Employees, 24 Emory L.J. 447 (1975); Comment, Municipal Police Residency Restriction: Remnant of Feudalism or Sound Public Policy?, 18 St. Louis U.L.J. 214 (1973); Comment, Residency Requirements for Municipal Employees: Denial Of A Right to Commute?, 7 U.S.F.L. Rev. 508 (1973).\nIn Manion v. Kreml (1970), 131 Ill. App. 2d 374, the court held that the authority to require residency of Chicago police officers within the city was within the statutory power given the police board of the city of Chicago (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 24, par. 3\u20147\u20143.1). The court did not consider whether the civil service commission of the city of Chicago had authority to impose such a requirement.\nThe plaintiffs correctly point out that the commission, being of statutory origin, must find its authority to promulgate a continuing residency rule within its enabling act. \u201cThe city civil service commission exercises a limited or statutory jurisdiction, no presumption of jurisdiction obtains in its favor, and it must find in the statute its warrant for any authority claimed.\u201d (People ex rel. Hurley v. Graber (1950), 405 Ill. 331, 343.) The commission\u2019s response is that its authority is derived from the predecessors of the following sections of article 10, division 1, of the Illinois Municipal Code:\n\u201cThe commission shall make rules to carry out the purposes of this Division 1, and for examinations, appointments and removals in accordance with its provisions, and the commission may, from time to time, make par. 10\u20141\u20145, formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1943, ch. 2414, par. 42.)\n\u201cAll applicants for. offices or places in the classified service, except those mentioned in Section 10\u20141\u201417 are subject to examination, which shall be public, competitive, and open to all citizens of the United States, with specified limitations as to Tesidence, age, health, habits and moral character. ***\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 10\u20141-7, formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1943, ch. 24\u00bd, par. 44.)\n\u201cExcept as hereinafter provided in this section, no officer or employee in the classified civil service of any municipality who is appointed under the rules and after examination, may be removed or discharged, or suspended for a period of more than 30 days, except for cause upon written charges and after an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. ***\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 10\u20141\u201418, formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1943, ch. 24\u00bd, par. 51.)\nAs the appellate court observed, the interpretation and construction of these provisions is governed by the rule that the intention of the legislature should be ascertained and given effect. This court has stated: \u201cThe legislative intent should be sought primarily from the language used in the statute. Where the language of the act is certain and unambiguous the only legitimate function of the courts is to enforce the law as enacted by the legislature. [Citations.] It is never proper for a court to depart from plain language by reading into a statute exceptions, limitations or conditions which conflict with the clearly expressed legislative intent. [Citations.] \u201d Certain Taxpayers v. Sheahen (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 75, 84.\nSection 10\u20141\u20145, cited above, shows a legislative intent that municipal civil service commissions were to have the power to make rules for removals, as the statute puts it, of employees in accordance with the provisions of division 1. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 10\u20141\u20145.) Section 10\u20141\u20147 expressly calls for the providing of limitations as to residence, and other factors, upon those who would take competitive examinations for appointment in the classified service. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 10\u20141\u20147.) Section 10\u20141\u201418 provides against the removal of a classified officer or employee who is appointed under the rules and after examination \u201cexcept for cause upon written charges and after an opportunity to be heard in his own defense.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 10-1-18.\nWe consider that the commission has the authority to regard an employee\u2019s moving his residence from the city of Harvey as \u201ccause\u201d for discharge. In Kammann v. City of Chicago (1906), 222 Ill. 63, 65-66, this court in construing a predecessor to section 10\u20141-18, stated: \u201cThe statute is silent as to what constitutes \u2018cause.\u2019 Manifestly the right to determine that question is left with the civil service commission ***. Joyce v. City of Chicago, 216 Ill. 466.\u201d The position that the determination of \u201ccause\u201d is for the commission has been repeatedly recognized. (Klafter v. State Board of Examiners (1913), 259 Ill. 15, 21; Fantozzi v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 357, 360; Senese v. Civil Service Com. (1967), 88 Ill. App. 2d 172, 175; Sudduth v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1964), 48 Ill. App. 2d 194, 213; Bruno v. Civil Service Com. (1962), 38 Ill. App. 2d 100, 108-09; Drury v. Hurley (1949), 339 Ill. App. 33, 39, 41.) Of course, the commission must act in a manner not arbitrary or unreasonable in determining what constitutes \u201ccause.\u201d Fantozzi v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 357, 360; Sudduth v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1964), 48 Ill. App. 2d 194, 213; Bruno v. Civil Service Com. (1962), 38 Ill. App. 2d 100, 109; Drury v. Hurley (1949), 339 Ill. App. 33, 42. See Kreiser v. Police Board (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 27, 30-31.\nThe legislature has made it clear that residence, as well as age, health, habits and moral character, may be an employment qualification of applicants for civil service employment. We cannot say that the commission, in promulgating its rule that \u201cRemoval from the City of Harvey shall be cause for the discharge of any person in the classified service ***\u201d (Rules of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Harvey, Illinois, Rule VI, sec. 4), acted unreasonably or arbitrarily.\nFor the reasons given, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nAppellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed; cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE WARD" }, { "text": "MR. JUSTICE CLARK,\ndissenting:\nI do not believe the Civil Service Commission of the city of Harvey has the statutory authority to require residency of its classified service employees. I therefore dissent, and do so for the reasons stated in the appellate court decision. 54 Ill. App. 3d 21, 23-24.\nLike the plaintiffs, I do not dispute the constitutionality of a residency requirement for civil servants. Nor do I dispute the prerogative of Harvey to enact such a requirement. There are sound policy reasons for it. My disagreement with the majority is that there has been an improper delegation of this responsibility to a statutory creature with a very limited competence. There is no presumption in favor of its regulations. A municipal civil service commission \u201cmust find in the statute its warrant for any authority claimed.\u201d People ex rel. Hurley v. Graber (1950), 405 Ill. 331, 343. Accord, Boner v. Drazek (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 279, 288. See Bio-Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Trainor (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 540, 551.\nI see nothing in the Commission\u2019s enabling statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 10\u20141\u20141 et seq.) which might reasonably provide the Commission with the authority to promulgate the residency requirement. The majority, by reading together sections 10\u20141\u20145, 10\u20141\u20147 and 10\u20141\u201418 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 1\u20141\u20141 et seq.), concludes the Commission had specific authority to provide for a residency requirement. Section 10\u20141\u20145 authorizes the Commission to make rules for examinations, appointments and removals. Section 10\u20141\u20147 permits \u201cspecified limitations as to residence\u201d for \u201capplicants for offices or places in the classified service\u201d (emphasis added). Section 10\u20141\u201418 provides that \u201cno officer or employee in the classified civil service of any municipality who is appointed under the rules and after examination, may be removed or discharged *** except for cause ***.\u201d There is nothing else the majority points to in article 10, division 1 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, pars. 10\u20141\u20141 to 10\u20141\u201448) to support its position.\nSection 10\u20141\u20147\u2019s reference to residency limitation is quite clearly a reference to applicants only and not to persons in classified service. As the appellate court pointed out, controverting the majority\u2019s reasoning \u201cis the provision in section 10\u20141\u201418 of the Code that a person in classified service may be removed only for cause shown, and the further provisions in that section relating to mandatory retirement of firemen and policemen upon reaching an age prescribed by statute or municipal ordinance, in which situation the commission\u2019s role is simply to oversee the retirement or discharge of that person. Since the legislature granted to the civil service commissions authority to deal with the question of the age of applicants for classified positions, but withheld such authority with regard to removal, it cannot be reasonably inferred that the grant of authority to the commissions to deal with the question of residency of applicants for such positions constituted also a grant of authority to prescribe residency requirements as a condition of continued classified service. No presumption of jurisdiction obtains in favor of a civil service commission (People ex rel. Hurley v. Graber), and no reasonable inference may be made from the pertinent portions of the Illinois Municipal Code upon which to predicate a conclusion that the legislature intended civil service commissions to adopt rules and regulations relating to residency as a cause for removal from classified service.\u201d (54 Ill. App. 3d 21, 24.) For these reasons, I believe the appellate court decision should have been affirmed.", "type": "dissent", "author": "MR. JUSTICE CLARK," } ], "attorneys": [ "Edward T. Havey, of Chicago, for appellants.", "Lavelle, Levinson, Wanninger & Lambert, of Chicago, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 50291.\nHARVEY FIREMEN\u2019S ASSOCIATION et al., Appellees, v. THE CITY OF HARVEY et al., Appellants.\nOpinion filed January 26, 1979.\nCLARK, J., dissenting.\nEdward T. Havey, of Chicago, for appellants.\nLavelle, Levinson, Wanninger & Lambert, of Chicago, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0358-01", "first_page_order": 372, "last_page_order": 381 }