{ "id": 2688519, "name": "ABE M. LINDERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Linderman v. Illinois Civil Service Commission", "decision_date": "1989-09-08", "docket_number": "No. 1-88-1955", "first_page": "554", "last_page": "559", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "188 Ill. App. 3d 554" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "523 N.E.2d 122", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 Ill. App. 3d 994", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3513223 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "999" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/168/0994-01" ] }, { "cite": "450 N.E.2d 1298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Ill. App. 3d 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3557729 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "728" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/115/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 N.E.2d 1037", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 Ill. App. 3d 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3158933 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/90/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "431 N.E.2d 1330", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 Ill. App. 3d 954", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5483922 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/103/0954-01" ] }, { "cite": "452 N.E.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 Ill. App. 3d 736", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3518795 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "739" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/116/0736-01" ] }, { "cite": "438 N.E.2d 147", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ill. 2d 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3091741 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/91/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "426 N.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5469434 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/85/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "332 N.E.2d 143", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 932", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2503275 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/29/0932-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 510, "char_count": 10395, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.992026982513418e-08, "percentile": 0.5028974662229342 }, "sha256": "93b83dec772f2f16c4d20af61488652b52c0394496220aede1a15c67f614af30", "simhash": "1:b97709363b43ccd0", "word_count": 1633 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:36:06.130198+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ABE M. LINDERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE PINCHAM\ndelivered the opinion of the court;\nPlaintiff, Abe M. Linderman, filed with the Illinois Civil Service Commission (the Commission) for administrative review of the Illinois Department of Employment Security\u2019s (IDES\u2019) decision to terminate his employment. The Commission upheld his termination. Plaintiff then filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County naming as defendants the Commission, IDES, and the Illinois Central Management Services (ICMS). The trial court affirmed the Commission\u2019s ruling which upheld plaintiff\u2019s employment termination with IDES. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.\nPlaintiff was employed by IDES as a hearing supervisor. In 1986, a budgetary crisis occurred in IDES (which ultimately resulted in the layoff of hundreds of IDES employees). As a result of this fiscal crisis, a layoff plan was mandated and approved by ICMS, and a series of layoff warnings were given IDES employees. On April 15, 1986, plaintiff was first advised of his proposed layoff, which was to be effective at the close of the business day on May 15, 1986. At various points thereafter, on April 30 and also on May 15, 1986, plaintiff was again informed by various supervisors that he would be laid off. Each date came and went without plaintiff\u2019s layoff being implemented. On May 30, 1986, Linderman again received notice of his layoff, in the mail, effective that day.\nLinderman appealed his layoff to the Commission. The Commission requested additional information from him. In his response, Linderman asserted that IDES violated section 302.540 of the Illinois Personnel Rules by imposing a layoff only two days after approval by ICMS. Section 302.540 of the Illinois Administrative Code (80 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a7302.540 (1985)) provides that \u201cunless extraordinary operating conditions or events are specified in the proposed layoff plan, no indeterminate layoff shall be effective until ten days after\u201d the director\u2019s approval of the plan.\nThe Commission acknowledged that 10 working days did not elapse between the approval of the layoff plan by ICMS and the effective date of plaintiff\u2019s layoff. The Commission, however, concluded that the layoff plan specified \u201cextraordinary operating conditions or events,\u201d and that, therefore, the ten-day ICMS approval of the layoff plan was not required, and upheld plaintiff\u2019s termination.\nPlaintiff filed a complaint in the trial court to review the Commission\u2019s decision. The trial court upheld the decision of the Commission.\nOn this appeal, we consider plaintiff\u2019s assertion that he was laid off without proper notice, as required by Illinois Personnel Rules. The other issues presented by the plaintiff were not urged before the trial court and are deemed waived before this court. Smith v. Ashley (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 932, 332 N.E.2d 143.\nIn Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. Civil Service Comm\u2019n (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 547, 426 N.E.2d 885, the supreme court mandated a two-step process for a reviewing court in reviewing an administrative agency\u2019s (the Commission\u2019s) decision to discharge an employee: (1) to determine whether the agency\u2019s findings of fact are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; and (2) to determine whether the findings of fact provide a sufficient basis for the conclusion that cause for discharge does or does not exist. The latter is not tested by the manifest weight of the evidence, but rather whether the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or unrelated to the requirements of the service. Sutton v. Civil Service Comm\u2019n (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 404, 438 N.E.2d 147; Secretary of State v. Kunz (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 736, 739, 452 N.E.2d 387, 389; Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. Civil Service Comm\u2019n (1982), 103 Ill. App. 3d 954, 431 N.E.2d 1330.\nIn the case at bar, the facts are undisputed and thus the findings are not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and there is compliance with the first step. Hence, the second step, whether the Commission\u2019s decision is arbitrary and unreasonable, is the determinative issue before us.\nSection 302.540 of Title 80 of the Illinois Administrative Code provides:\n\u201cUnless extraordinary operating conditions or events are specified in the proposed layoff plan, no indeterminate layoff shall be effective until ten working days after the Director\u2019s approval of the layoff plan.\u201d (80 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a7302.540 (1985).)\nThe issue before this court is whether the Commission properly found that \u201cextraordinary operating conditions\u201d existed at the time of Linderman\u2019s layoff.\nOn May 19, 1986, the director of IDES submitted her layoff plan to ICMS for approval. In the layoff plan, the director explained the loss of Federal funding which necessitated the reduction of 300 positions in the workforce. The director further detailed the steps taken by IDES to notify its employees of the funding crisis and its efforts to place IDES employees with other State agencies. At the conclusion of the layoff plan, the director requested a waiver of the 10-day notice rule based on \u201cthe severe budgetary crisis in which the agency finds itself.\u201d On May 28, 1986, ICMS approved the waiver of the 10-day notice \u201cbased on the reason for the layoff and prior employee notification.\u201d\nOn the foregoing facts, the Commission found and ruled that IDES and ICMS had not violated section 302.540. The Commission based its finding on the \u201cextraordinary operating conditions or events\u201d specified in the proposed layoff plan and the notices provided to employees prior to the layoff.\nThe language of an administrative regulation is to be given its ordinary meaning. (Kern v. Uregas Service of West Frankfort, Inc. (1980), 90 Ill. App. 3d 182, 412 N.E.2d 1037.) \u201cExtraordinary\u201d is defined as \u201cnot of the ordinary order or pattern.\u201d (Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 807 (1971).) The Commission validly concluded that a crisis which necessitated the layoff of 300 employees was an extraordinary operating condition. The Commission\u2019s decision that IDES and ICMS did not violate section 302.540 by waiving the notice requirement is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.\nPlaintiff asserts that this budgetary crisis was not extraordinary because it was foreseeable. However, there is no language in section 302.540 which defines extraordinary in terms of foreseeability. Section 302.540 was promulgated by ICMS under the authority of the Personnel Code. (80 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a7302 (1985); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 127, par. 63b108.) An agency\u2019s interpretation of its own rule is entitled to deference on administrative review. (Buchanan v. Lenz (1983), 115 Ill. App. 3d 722, 728, 450 N.E.2d 1298.) Therefore, ICMS\u2019s interpretation of extraordinary as encompassing IDES\u2019s fiscal crisis was properly credited by the Commission and the trial court.\nPlaintiff further asserts that IDES\u2019 actions caused uncertainty as to whether he would be laid off. Plaintiff admittedly received written notice from the director of IDES on April 15, 1986, advising him that he would be laid off on May 15, 1986. This notice was never rescinded, although the director did not actually lay plaintiff off on May 15. The Commission properly noted this prior warning to plaintiff in determining that ICMS properly waived the notice requirement. But even if plaintiff had received no prior warnings of the impending layoff, the Commission correctly held that ICMS properly waived the required notice under section 302.540.\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s challenge to the Commission\u2019s decision, plaintiff suggests that the Commission erred in failing to grant him a hearing. We disagree.\nIn an analogous case, Cohen v. Civil Service Comm\u2019n (1988), 168 Ill. App. 3d 994, 523 N.E.2d 122, plaintiff, Michael Cohen, as plaintiff in the case at bar, was employed by IDES as a hearing supervisor. Also as in the instant case, Cohen was laid off as a result of a decreased agency budget. Cohen appealed his termination to the Commission asserting that he was laid off in contravention of section 8b. 13 of the Personnel Code, which provides that in determining who should be laid off, by reason of lack of funds or work, consideration must be given to one\u2019s performance record, seniority and the impact on achieving equal employment opportunity goals. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 127, par. 63b.108b.13.) Cohen maintained that seniority was not taken into consideration in his termination. The Commission upheld Cohen\u2019s termination, and the trial court upheld the Commission\u2019s ruling. On appeal, Cohen maintained, as Linderman does in the case at bar, that he was improperly deprived of a hearing by the Commission. This court rejected Cohen\u2019s argument and held that \u201cthe record before us demonstrates that plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond at every step of the Commission\u2019s decision-making process.\u201d (Cohen, 168 Ill. App. 3d at 999.) Plaintiff in the case at bar likewise presented the Commission with his arguments and was given an opportunity to respond to the contentions of IDES. After a review of both parties\u2019 contentions, the Commission determined that no hearing was necessary. We cannot say the Commission\u2019s decision that no substantial issue of fact or law existed was in error or that any due process violation occurred.\nThe facts surrounding plaintiff\u2019s layoff were not disputed. The question of law presented was resolved by reference to a resolution of the language of section 302.540. Whether a budget crisis which resulted in the layoff of hundreds of employees constituted \u201cextraordinary operating conditions\u201d was not a question which required a hearing prior to its resolution.\nFor the above and foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Commission\u2019s decision that IDES and ICMS did not violate section 302.540 is neither arbitrary nor capricious and we affirm the trial court\u2019s order upholding plaintiff\u2019s termination by the Commission.\nAffirmed.\nLORENZ and COCCIA, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE PINCHAM" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stephen A. Yokich, of Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Robert J. Ruiz, Solicitor General, and Valerie J. Peiler, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ABE M. LINDERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 88\u20141955\nOpinion filed September 8, 1989.\nStephen A. Yokich, of Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, for appellant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Robert J. Ruiz, Solicitor General, and Valerie J. Peiler, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0554-01", "first_page_order": 576, "last_page_order": 581 }