Judicial Rulings

Illinois Supreme Court

Court upholds ban on compulsory retirement before age 70

THREE tenured teachers who had reached the age of 65 and were scheduled for compulsory retirement can now look forward to teaching until the age of 70, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled November 13. In the case, The Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508 v. The Human Rights Commission, the points of contention were whether compulsory retirement prior to age 70 constitutes a civil rights violation prohibited by the Illinos Human Rights Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1980 Supp., ch. 68, sec. 1-101 et seq.) and, if so, whether the action of the Chicago City Colleges in mandating retirement at 65 was exempt under a provision of the act.

In delivering the high court's opinion, Justice Seymour Simon noted that while the act does not include compulsory retirement before age 70 in its definition of unlawful discrimination, a provision of the act exempting compulsory retirement of certain high-ranking executives would be pointless if the act as a whole did not encompass retirement. In addition, Simon said, ". . .an analysis of the broad intent of the legislature and similar employment-discrimination statutes leads to the conclusion that the Act encompasses retirement."

The City Colleges had argued that their retirement system is permitted to enforce mandatory retirement at age 65 under a provision in the act which allows for differing "terms" and "conditions of employment" in retirement systems, so long as the system "does not have the effect of unlawful discrimination." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1980 Supp., ch. 68^ Sec. 2-104 (E) (1)). They argued that compulsory retirement is a legitimate "term" of employment and not merely a subterfuge for discrimination. But the high court disagreed. "We do not think retirement, which terminates employment, can be ... plausibly described as a term or condition of employment," Simon said.

The circuit court had found the provision allowing for different terms and conditions of employment unconstitutionally vague, but Justice Simon disagreed, saying, "The fact is that this section does not exempt any specific retirement plan; rather, it exempts only different standards of compensation or terms. . . . When the exemption is construed this way, the Illinois Human Rights Act encourages the employment of older workers by permitting the employer to apply different standards when paying pensions to or making contributions for them so that hiring them is not more costly than hiring younger persons."

State jurisdiction in class action suits where most members are nonresidents

A STATE court can assume jurisdiction over a class action suit even when most members of the class are not residents of the state, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled November 13.

In the case, Steven Miner v. The Gillette Company, Miner had filed a class action suit on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers, charging Gillette with deceptive practices and breach of contract in connection with the company's promotion of its "Cricket" disposable lighters. Miner claimed that neither the constitutional obligation to ensure due process, which requires that members of a class be adequately represented and informed of the action on their behalf, nor the Illinois class action statute preclude a multistate class action in Illinois.

Gillette, however, claimed that the due process requirement that nonresident defendents in a class action have had some minimum contact with the forum in which the action is to take place, was applicable to the plaintiffs and had the affect of barring them from the suit. The appellate court agreed. But the high court agreed with Miner that the minimum contact rule does not apply in every case to nonresident plaintiffs.

Gillette also argued that the multistate class action suit did not involve a predominating question of fact or law; instead, individual questions of law relating to each of the 50 states pre-dominated. But the high court, disagreeing with the appellate court, held that a common question of fact or of law is sufficient for a class action suit; both are not required.

Since the common question of fact was pre-sent; since there was adequate notification and representation of nonresident members, and since Miner could show that differing laws of states concerning the action can be grouped into a manageable number of subclasses for adjudication, ". . . the judgment rendered on behalf of the class members — resident and nonresident--will be binding on each, and such judgment will be entitled to full faith and credit," said Justice Thomas J. Moran in delivering the high court's majority opinion.

But in a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Howard C. Ryan said, "The majority opinion omits some essential maucs from its statement of facts." Ryan noted that Gillette, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Massachusettes, had directed responses to its promotion to a "fulfillment house" in Minnesota. "No aspect of the promotion took place in Illinois other than those aspects seeking responses from persons in this State," Ryan said.

"Admitting that a departure from the 'minimum contacts' requirement is permissible I, nonetheless, maintain that this State must have a certain nexus with the claims of the absent class members before our courts can extend their jurisdiction beyond the border of this State," Ryan said. He further contended that the court's ruling "is depriving these absent class members of the right to litigate their claims in the courts of their own States. . . . The opinion seems to be reach-ing out to sweep into Illinois all nationwide class litigation which cannot be maintained in Federal courts. . . . Class actions of this magnitude are time consuming and difficult to manage. They constitute unusual burdens on an already burdened court system."

Remap decisions

THE U.S Supreme Court upheld the Democratic-drawn map for the 22 new Congressional districts in Illinois on January 11, and a three-judge federal panel upheld a Democratic party map for the new state legislative districts on January 13.

The congressional map is drawn so that four Republican incumbents share two districts. The state legislative district lines were changed somewhat from the original Democratic map approved by the Reapportionment Commission. Details will be reported later.

28/February 1982/Illinois Issues