Haake v. The Board Of Education For Township High School Glenbard District

87 925 N.E.2d 297 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps are a group of 107 retired teachers formerly employed by D. All Ps retired between the spring of 1994 and June 2007. Ps' employment terms were governed by various collective bargaining agreements (contracts) reached between D and the teachers' union, the Glenbard Education Association (GEA). Ps took early retirement. All of Ps submitted their notices of intent to participate in the early retirement plan and were approved by D for such participation prior to June 29, 2005. However, under the terms of the Earlier Contracts, a teacher could not retire immediately after submitting his or her notice of intent. Rather, the notice of intent had to be submitted between one and two years before the date on which the teacher planned to retire. In August 2007, the 2007 contract took effect. D now required active teachers and retirees to pay 11% of the premium costs for a single insurance program in 2007-08, and 1% more each year through the 2011-12 school year, when teachers would be required to pay 15% of the cost. D sent out letters to all retirees, stating that beginning July 1, 2007, all retirees would be required to contribute towards the premium costs of their single health insurance plans at the same rate as active teachers. Ps filed a grievance with the GEA, but it refused to support the grievance because the change in premium contributions had been bargained and approved by the then-members of the GEA. After the grievance was denied, Ps filed suit against D. Ps alleged breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel. D contends in part that judgment should be entered in its favor as to 23 Ps because they did not properly qualify for the benefits at issue under the Earlier Contracts. Ds claims that, although the 23 Ps met the other eligibility requirements contained in the Earlier Contracts, those contracts also imposed the requirement that the teachers participate in a separate plan, the Teachers' Retirement System Early Retirement Option (ERO). The ERO imposed different and additional age and experience qualifications, beyond those necessary under the collective bargaining agreements in effect between D and the GEA, and the 23 Ps do not meet these additional requirements. Ps argue that participation in the ERO was not a condition of participation in the early retirement plan established by the Earlier Contracts. The 23 Ps claim that D waived this argument, both by failing to raise it as an affirmative defense in its answer, and by voluntarily approving the participation of the 23 Ps in its early retirement plan. Eventually, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The court granted Ps’ motion and the parties reached an agreement on stipulated damages. D appealed.