Find Legal Information

Docket Nos. 96012, 96114 cons.-Agenda 15-November 2003.

BRIAN MATTIS, Indiv. and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. THE STATE UNIVERSITIES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees.

Opinion Filed May 20, 2004.

CHIEF JUSTICE McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court:

On February 16, 1995, appellee Brian Mattis, a retired lawprofessor, brought suit in the circuit court of Champaign County againstthe State Universities Retirement System (SURS) and the members of theSURS executive committee: William Norwood, Emil Haeflinger andStanley Rives. Count I of Mattis' complaint sought administrative reviewof the executive committee's denial of Mattis' administrative claim againstSURS. In this claim, Mattis had argued that, following his retirement fromhis position as a law professor at Southern Illinois University (SIU) in1994, SURS calculated his retirement annuity based on an incorrectinterpretation of certain provisions of article 15 of the Illinois PensionCode (40 ILCS 5/15-101 et seq. (West 1992)). According to Mattis,because of SURS's misconstruction of the statute, his retirement benefitswere considerably lower than they should have been. Mattis asked SURSto rectify the situation, but SURS declined, maintaining that itsinterpretation of the statute was correct.

The remaining counts of Mattis' complaint were based on this samealleged misinterpretation of the statute. In these counts, Mattis soughtcommon law and civil rights relief not only on his own behalf but also onbehalf of a purported class of similarly situated individuals.

The circuit court dismissed all counts in Mattis' complaint other thanthe administrative review claim (count I). Subsequently, the court grantedsummary judgment in favor of defendants on count I, finding that SURS'sadministrative "decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidenceand is not contrary to law." Mattis appealed, and the appellate courtreversed, holding that SURS misconstrued the statute. Mattis v. StateUniversities Retirement System, 296 Ill. App. 3d 675 (1998). Inaddition to reversing the circuit court's judgment on count I, the appellatecourt also reversed the dismissal of four other counts in Mattis' complaint.Following remand to the circuit court, the relevant provisions of thePension Code were amended by the legislature. These amendments,which took effect on July 6, 2000, supported SURS's interpretation of thestatute. The circuit court declared the amendments unconstitutional, andremanded to SURS "for a recalculation of plaintiff's pension benefitsconsistent with the language of the Mattis Appellate Court opinion." Thecircuit court ultimately ruled in favor of Mattis on his administrative claimagainst SURS. The court also awarded Mattis attorney fees and expenses.However, the remaining counts in Mattis' third amended complaint weredismissed.

Given the circuit court's invalidation of the Pension Codeamendments, defendants appealed directly to this court. 134 Ill. 2d R.302(a). Defendants' appeal was docketed in this court as cause No.96012. Mattis appealed to the appellate court. Upon motion bydefendants, Mattis' appeal was transferred to this court and consolidatedwith defendants' appeal. Mattis' appeal was docketed as cause No.96114.

BACKGROUND

On June 17, 1993, Mattis elected to retire from SIU under the earlyretirement provisions of section 15-136.2 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS5/15-136.2 (West 1992)). Mattis' retirement began on May 15, 1994,when he was 55 years and 8 months old. If he had retired at this pointwithout electing the early retirement option (ERO), his retirement annuityunder Rules 1 and 3 of section 15-136 of the Pension Code would havebeen reduced by