{ "id": 4291851, "name": "CHAMPAIGN-URBANA PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Champaign-Urbana Public Health District v. Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security", "decision_date": "2009-09-11", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201408\u20140809", "first_page": "182", "last_page": "186", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "395 Ill. App. 3d 182" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "375 N.E.2d 877", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "880" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3358949 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/59/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 N.E.2d 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "558" }, { "page": "558" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 Ill. 2d 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2744491 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512" }, { "page": "512" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/19/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "835 N.E.2d 955", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "962" }, { "page": "962" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "361 Ill. App. 3d 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4258688 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "305" }, { "page": "305-06" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/361/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "642 N.E.2d 486", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "491" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 Ill. App. 3d 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 333141 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "392" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/267/0386-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 445, "char_count": 7948, "ocr_confidence": 0.778, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14434374359277316 }, "sha256": "a9926ccd8ad096e2854865ab92b6539a5dfb6f75c6e3b8cec7b6875ba6a9a9d0", "simhash": "1:122c54be7943c6d3", "word_count": 1248 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:58:02.073967+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CHAMPAIGN-URBANA PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn January 2006, plaintiff, Champaign-Urbana Public Health District (the District), hired codefendant Shelley J. Scott as its finance director. In May 4, 2007, Scott submitted her unsolicited letter of resignation to the chairperson of the District\u2019s board. Thereafter, Scott applied for unemployment benefits, which the Department of Employment Security granted. The District contested the Department\u2019s grant in this regard, citing section 601(A) of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/601(A) (West 2006)) and arguing that because Scott had resigned, she was not eligible for unemployment benefits. Following an administrative hearing, the Board of Review found that Scott had not resigned but had been discharged.\nIn February 2008, the District filed a complaint for administrative review seeking reversal of the Board\u2019s decision. In October 2008, the circuit court affirmed the Board of Review\u2019s decision.\nThe District appeals, arguing that Scott voluntarily resigned, rendering her ineligible for unemployment benefits under the Act. We agree, reverse the circuit court\u2019s judgment, and remand with directions.\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn May 2007, Scott anonymously reported to the District\u2019s board that her supervisor had engaged in financial impropriety with District funds. Thereafter, the District\u2019s board investigated these allegations.\nOn May 4, 2007, Scott removed all personal items from her office and submitted an unsolicited letter of resignation to the chairperson of the District\u2019s board, Carol Elliott. Scott\u2019s letter cited difficulty with her supervisor as the reason for her departure, which she noted was \u201ceffective immediately.\u201d After receiving the letter of resignation, Elliott asked Scott if she would be willing to stay at her job if her supervisor was no longer employed by the District. Scott responded that she would stay. That same day, the District\u2019s board suspended Scott\u2019s supervisor pending the results of its investigation. Elliott later testified that her question to Scott was merely hypothetical. However, Scott testified that she interpreted Elliott\u2019s question as an offer of continued employment, which she accepted.\nScott returned to her empty office on Monday, May 7, 2007. Scott\u2019s acting supervisor, Julie Pryde, knowing that Scott submitted her resignation on Friday, May 4, 2007, asked the District\u2019s counsel for clarification on Scott\u2019s employment status. Counsel responded that he required time to research the issue. In the interim, Pryde treated Scott as if she were still an employee and left Scott to work on the District\u2019s budget. (A failure to complete the budget by the end of the week would have resulted in the District losing its funding.)\nScott never completed the budget. Instead, Scott went home sick on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, and on Wednesday, May 9, 2007, sent a letter to Elliott, attempting to negotiate a severance package. Scott went home sick on Thursday, May 10, 2007, as well. On Friday, May 11, 2007, the District\u2019s counsel informed Pryde that Scott\u2019s resignation became final at the time her resignation letter was submitted to Elliott on May 4, 2007. Pryde immediately informed Scott in writing that her resignation had been effective on that date. Thereafter, Scott filed for unemployment benefits, which she was granted. The Board of Review upheld this benefit determination, and the circuit court affirmed. (We note the Board of Review\u2019s decision referred to the referee\u2019s section 602(A) finding (820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2006)) and correctly ignored it as irrelevant. That section deals with employee misconduct, which no one raised as an issue in this case.)\nThis appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nThe District argues that Scott\u2019s May 4, 2007, letter of resignation was effective upon delivery and was not subject to rescission. Scott responds that she rescinded her resignation when Elliott asked Scott if she would consider staying. As evidence that she rescinded her resignation, Scott points to the fact that she worked on the budget the following week. Scott posits that she was later discharged when she received Pryde\u2019s letter acknowledging her May 4, 2007, resignation. We agree with the District that Scott\u2019s resignation was effective May 4, 2007.\nA. Undisputed Facts and the Standard of Review\nThe following facts are undisputed: (1) Scott hand-delivered a resignation letter to Elliott on May 4, 2007; (2) the letter stated that Scott\u2019s resignation was \u201ceffective immediately\u201d; and (3) Scott was a public employee.\nThe legal effect of undisputed facts is a question of law, which we review de novo. Fitzpatrick v. Human Rights Comm\u2019n, 267 Ill. App. 3d 386, 392, 642 N.E.2d 486, 491 (1994).\nB. Scott\u2019s Resignation Was Final and Irrevocable\nWhen a public officer tenders a letter of resignation, \u201cthe resignation is an unalterable fact and the officer cannot withdraw the resignation and cannot negate it by continuing to perform the job.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Rohrback v. Department of Employment Security, 361 Ill. App. 3d 298, 305, 835 N.E.2d 955, 962 (2005). This has long been the law in Illinois because \u201cpublic policy requires that there be certainty as to who are and who are not public officers.\u201d People ex rel. Adamowski v. Kerner, 19 Ill. 2d 506, 512, 167 N.E.2d 555, 558 (1960). This same standard applies to public employees as well. Stearns v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 59 Ill. App. 3d 569, 572, 375 N.E.2d 877, 880 (1978).\nIn this case, the record reveals, and the parties do not dispute, that on May 4, 2007, Scott, a public employee, tendered her resignation \u201ceffective immediately.\u201d In doing so, Scott\u2019s resignation became a fait accompli. Nevertheless, citing Kerner, 19 Ill. 2d at 512, 167 N.E.2d at 558, Scott asserts that Elliott took affirmative action to preclude her resignation for the public convenience \u2014 that is, the budget issue was so significant that Elliott was forced to disregard Scott\u2019s May 4, 2007, resignation \u2014 and that Scott agreed to do so. However, given the facts of this case, whatever conversation Scott and Elliott had after the resignation letter was tendered is irrelevant. As this court explained in Rohrback, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 305-06, 835 N.E.2d at 962, Scott\u2019s return to the office the following week and subsequent work on the budget have no bearing on her employment status. Further, contrary to Scott\u2019s assertion, Pryde\u2019s May 11, 2007, correspondence to Scott was nothing more than an official acknowledgment that Scott\u2019s resignation became effective on May 4, 2007.\nBecause we conclude that Scott resigned on May 4, 2007, she is ineligible for unemployment benefits unless she is otherwise qualified for such benefits pursuant to the terms of section 601 of the Act (820 ILCS 405/601 (West 2006)). Accordingly, we remand this matter for a determination as to whether Scott is otherwise eligible for benefits under section 601 of the Act (820 ILCS 405/601 (West 2006)).\nIn closing, we note that when determining whether Scott is eligible for unemployment benefits, the Board of Review shall not consider anything done or said to Scott after she delivered her resignation letter to Elliott on May 4, 2007.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we reverse the circuit court\u2019s judgment and remand with directions.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nTURNER and APPLETON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Frederic M. Grosser (argued), of Champaign, for appellant.", "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Janon E. Fabiano (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees Board of Review of Department of Employment Security, James P. Sledge, and Department of Employment Security." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHAMPAIGN-URBANA PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201408\u20140809\nOpinion filed September 11, 2009.\nFrederic M. Grosser (argued), of Champaign, for appellant.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Janon E. Fabiano (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees Board of Review of Department of Employment Security, James P. Sledge, and Department of Employment Security." }, "file_name": "0182-01", "first_page_order": 198, "last_page_order": 202 }