Bitner v. City of Pekin
2025 IL 131039 (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 1(b) of the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act does not prohibit a public employer from withholding employment taxes from payments made to an injured employee under that provision, as the statute mandates payment "on the same basis" as pre-injury pay and does not explicitly forbid such withholdings.
Facts:
- Christopher Bitner and John Brooks were employed as police officers for the City of Pekin.
- Bitner and Brooks sustained injuries in the line of duty in separate incidents.
- Following their injuries, Bitner and Brooks received salary payments from the City of Pekin pursuant to section 1(b) of the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act.
- The City of Pekin continued to withhold employment taxes, including federal and state income taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes, from these payments, in the same manner as before the injuries.
- Bitner was injured in 2011 and unable to work for various hours intermittently until 2017, claiming $1,105.45 in withheld taxes and $2,160.38 in mandated use of accrued time.
- Brooks was injured in 2016 and unable to work for 80 hours, claiming $767.20 in withheld employment taxes, but did not claim deduction of accrued time.
- The City of Pekin, through its chief of police, stated it had no record of notifying Bitner that his time off for duty-related injury would be deducted from accrued leave.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 13, 2018, Christopher Bitner and John Brooks (plaintiffs) filed a two-count, class-action complaint against the City of Pekin (defendant) in the circuit court of Tazewell County, alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for withholding employment taxes and improperly using accrued time.
- The circuit court (trial court) dismissed the plaintiffs' initial complaint, finding that payments under section 1(b) of the Disability Act did not qualify as wages under the Wage Act.
- The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which was also dismissed by the circuit court.
- On September 4, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendant violated section 1(b) of the Disability Act by withholding employment taxes and deducting from accrued time, removing all references to the Wage Act.
- In April 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, and the defendant filed a response and a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- On July 20, 2023, the circuit court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that section 1(b) prohibits a public employer from withholding employment taxes and that Bitner's claims were timely and not subject to collective bargaining agreement grievance procedures. The court entered judgment for Bitner in the amount of $3,211.92 and for Brooks in the amount of $767.20.
- The City of Pekin appealed the circuit court's judgment to the appellate court (intermediate appellate court).
- The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, finding that section 1(b) does not prohibit the withholding of employment taxes, that the five-year statute of limitations applied, and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the deduction of Bitner's accrued time.
- The plaintiffs filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does section 1(b) of the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act (5 ILCS 345/1(b)) prohibit a public employer from withholding employment taxes from payments made to an injured employee under that provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cunningham
No, section 1(b) of the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act does not prohibit a public employer from withholding employment taxes from payments made to an injured employee under that provision. The court's primary goal in statutory construction is to determine legislative intent, beginning with the plain language of the statute. Section 1(b) states that an injured employee "shall continue to be paid by the employing public entity on the same basis as he was paid before the injury." This phrase signifies that payment should come from the regular payroll, administered in the same manner as if the employee were actively on duty, including the continued withholding of employment taxes if that was the prior practice. Furthermore, the statute explicitly prohibits deductions from sick leave, compensatory time, vacation, or pension service credits, but makes no mention of prohibiting employment tax withholding. Applying the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another), the specific listing of certain prohibitions implies that others, such as tax withholdings, are permitted. The court rejected the argument that allowing withholding leads to an absurd result, noting that if the payments are indeed tax-exempt, the employee's proper recourse is to seek a refund from the IRS or adjust their W-4 form, rather than requiring the employer to cease withholding. Allowing employers to maintain consistent payment administration eases their burden, especially for employees with intermittent leave, and places the responsibility for tax liability on the employee and the IRS.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interpretation of the phrase "on the same basis" within the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act, establishing that it refers to the administrative continuity of payroll, including tax withholding, rather than ensuring a specific net payment amount. The decision reinforces the application of the statutory construction principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, underscoring that legislative silence on a specific prohibition (tax withholding) implies its permission when other prohibitions are explicitly enumerated. For public employers, this means they are not required to alter their payroll withholding practices for employees receiving disability payments under the Act, reducing administrative complexity. For employees, the ruling places the onus on them to address any perceived tax-exempt status of these payments directly with the IRS, potentially through refunds or W-4 adjustments, rather than expecting employers to unilaterally cease withholding.
