5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
-
Upload
zoe-galland -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
1/18
N
OT
iCE
Tb
tn
t
of
this
ofder
may be
h nged
or
n
pil
f
to
the
t
fo
r i
ng
o
—
—
etition
for henmnaor
l
b disposition
oi
2
0b IL
A
pp
t 1 0
277
U
NOTICE
th
urn
This order
was
filed
un r
NO. 5—
15-
0277
upreme
Court ule 23
and
may not
be c it ed
as
precedenl
n j ‘ T
r
by
any
party
except n
the
It’N
ilt
limited
circumstances
allowed
under
Rule
23 e 1 .
AP
PEL
LAT
E
COU
RT
O
F
ILL
INO
IS
FIF
TH DI
STR
ICT
AM
ERI
CAN
FED
ERA
TIO
N
O
F ST
ATE
C
OU
NTY
Inte
rloc
utor
y
Ap
peal f
rom
A
ND
M
UN
ICIP
AL
EM
PL
OYE
ES. CO
UNC
IL
31
.
the C
ircu
it
C
ourt
of the
IL
LIN
OIS
T
ROO
PE
RS
LO
DG
E
N
O.
41
.
Tw
entie
th Jud i
cial Circ
uit
FR
AT
ERN
AL
ORD
ER
O
F
POL
ICE
;
IL
LIN
OIS
St. C
lair C
oun
ty Illin
ois
NU
RSE
S ASS
OCI
ATI
ON:
I
LLIN
OIS
FE
DER
AT
ION
O
F PU
BLI
C
E
MP
LOY
EES
. LOC
AL 4
408
IFT-
AFT
:
IL
LINO
IS
FE
DER
ATI
ON OF
TEA
CIJE
RS. LO
CAL
919 ;
IN
TER
NAT
ION
AL
BR
OT
FIER
HO
OD
O
F
EL
ECT
RIC
AL
WO
RK
ERS
;
I
LLI
NOI
S
FR
ATE
RN
AL OR
DER
OF
POL
ICE
LA
BOR
J
UL
2
CO
UN
CIL;
L
AB
ORE
RS
INTE
RN
ATI
ONA
L
5
UNI
ON
O
F
N
ORT
H
AM
ERI
CA
ISEA LO
CAL
CL
ER
KA4
Flu
00
2002; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UN
ION
.
LO
CAL
7
3;
SE I
U H
EA
LTH C
ARE
IL
LIN
OIS
IND
IAN
A:
S
EIU LO
CA
L ;
T
EA
MST
ERS LOC
AL
UNI
ON
NO
.
70
5
AFF
ILIA
TED W
ITH
TH
E
I
NTE
RNA
TIO
NA
L
B
ROT
IIE
RHO
OD
O
F TE
AMS
TER
S;
a
nd
C
ON
SER
VAT
ION
PO
LIC
E LO
DG
E O
F THE
P
OLI
CE BE
NEV
OL
ENT AR
ID PR
OTE
CTI
VE
ASS
OC
IATI
ON
Plai
ntifis
Ap
pefle
es.
v.
N
o.
I5
CH
475
T
ilE
ST
ATE
O
F
I
LLIN
OIS and
LES
LIE GE
ISS
LER
M
UN
GE
R.
in
1
1cr O
fficia
l Ca
paci
ty
as
Com
ptro
ller
fo
r
th
e Sta
te of
Illi
no is.
ono r
ble
Ro
ber t
P.
Le
Chie
n
Det
ènda
nts
App
ellants.
Judge presiding.
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
2/18
JUS
TICE
CH
APM
AN
del
ivere
d
the
jud
gme
nt
of
th
e
cou
rt.
P
resid
ing
Just
ice
Ga t
es
and
Ju
stice
Go
lden
hers
h
co
ncu r
red
in
th
e
ju
dgm
ent.
OR
ER
H
eld
:
Tr
ial
cour
t h
ad
ju
risdi
ction
in su it
to
c
omp
el
St
ate o
ffici
als
to
is
sue
p
aych
ecks
to
Sta
te
em
ploy
ees .
A
ttorn
ey Gen
eral
had st
andi
ng to
bri
ng
ap
peal
o
n be
half
of
the S
tate
of I
llino
is
even
thou
gh
the
trial
co
urt
dism
isse
d
th
e
S
tate
as a
par
ty an
d
C
omp
trol
ler
did
n
ot
file
her
ow
n
a
ppe
al.
C
ourt
did
not
ab
use
i
ts
discr
etion
in
enter
ing
a
tem
pora
ry
res
train
ing
orde
r.
2
Th
e d
ispu
te
unde
rlyin
g
this
a
ppea
l in
volv
es
th
e
f
ailur
e o
f t
he
l
egisl
atur
e
an
d
G
over
no r
to
agre
e
to a
budg
et.
D
ue
to
the
impa
sse ,
no app
ropriations
bill
exists
allowing
mo
st
Sta
te emp
loye
es
to
be
p
aid .
Se
vera
l
unio
ns re
prese
ntin
g
Stat
e
work
ers
bro
ugh
t
t
his
a
ctio
n
se
ekin
g
d
eclar
ator
y
and
inj
unc t
ive
relie
f.
The
y r
eque
sted
t
hat
th
e
Sta
te
o
mpt
rolle
r be
dire
cted
to is
sue
wa
rrant
s
a
llow
ing
un
ion
mem
bers
t
o b
e
paid
.
The
om
ptro
ller
to
ok the
posi
tion
tha t
a
ll S
tate
emp
loyee
s
sh
ould
be
pa
id,
not ju
st me
mbe
rs
of
the
unions
involved
in
this litigation, bu t
she
stated that
she
w
oul
not issue the payroll
w
rr
nts
abse
nt a
cou
rt
ord
er
to
do so.
T
he
trial
cou
rt
en ter
ed
a
tem
po r
ary
res
train
ing
ord
er
T
RO
di
recti
ng th
e
Co
mptr
oller
to p
ay
all
Sta
te
emp
loye
es
at
the
ir reg
ular
r
ates
o
f
pay .
The
St
ate,
via
th
e
Atto
rney
Ge
nera
l
AG
,
appe
als
p
ursu
an t
to
Illi
no is
Su
prem
e
Co
ur t
R
ule 30
7 d
e
ff.
F
eb.
26,
2
010
.
The
A
G
arg u
es
that
1
th
e
tri
al cou
rt
lack
ed
ju
risdi
ction
und
er
the
Sta te
L
aws
ui t Im
mun
ity
A
ct
74
5
IL
CS
5/1
W
est 20
14 ;
2
the
c
our t
abu
sed
its
dis
cret
ion
i
n ru
ling
in this
m
atter a
fter
a
Coo
k C
oun t
y
c
ourt
enter
ed
a
conf
lictin
g
ord
er;
3
the
r
equi
rem e
nts
for
is
su in
g
a
T
RO
we
re no
t
me t; an
d
4
the
co
urt
com
mit
ted
r
ever
sible
e
rror
by a
llow
ing the
C
om
ptrol
ler to
be rep
resen
ted
by
a
ttorn
eys
other
than the AG. The
Comptroller
filed
an
em ergency motion
to
dism iss this appeal,
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
3/18
argu
ing
th
at
the
AG
lack
ed th
e
auth
ority
to
br
ing
thi
s
app
eal on
eh
lf o
f
the
C
omp
trolle
r
due
to
th
e
diffe
renc
es be t
wee
n
their
p
ositi
ons
i
n
this
m
aile
r.
We d
eny
t
he
Co
mpt
rolle
r’s
m
otio
n to
dis
mis
s. W
e
affir
m
the
TRO ; however we remand with
directions
to
set
a
h
earin
g
date th
at
w
ill
lim
it
the dura
tion
of
the
T
RO
.
3
The
20
16
fis
cal
ye
ar beg
an
in
Illino
is o
n
Jul
y
201
5. T
he
Gov
erno
r
ve
toed
a
udg
et p
asse
d
b
y
th
e
legis
latur
e
a
nd
as
o
f
tod
ay
th
ere
is stil
l no
St
ate bu
dge t
in
e
ffec
t
fo
r
the
20
16
fisca
l
y
ear.
As a
re
sul t
the r
e is
n
o
a
ppro
pria
tion
in
p
lace
to
a
utho
rize
the
p yment
of
salaries
to
most State employees. However S
tate
empl
oyee
s h
ave
been
dire
cted
to
re
port to
w
ork
and
the
y h
ave co
mpl
ied
w
ith thi
s
direc
tive
.
4
On
July
2 s
ever
al u
nion
s
rep
rese
nting
Stat
e em
ploy
ees
fil
ed t
he
com
pla
int
at
iss
ue
in th
e
circ
ui t co
urt
of
St
.
C
lair
Co
unty a
gain
st
t
he
Sta
te
of
I
llino
is and
t
he
Com
ptro
lle r
in
he r o
ffici
al
cap
aci t
y. Th
ey
alle
ged
that
unde
r thei
r
coll
ectiv
e
ba
rgain
ing
a
gree
men
ts an
d
ex t
ensi
on s
of
tho
se agre
em e
nts
th
e S
tate
is
requ
ired
to
pay
un
ion m
emb
ers
in
a
tim
ely
ma
nn er
.
Th
e
unio
ns
fur
the r
alle
ged
t
hat
“No
twith
stan
ding
th
e l
ack
of
bud
geta
ry
ap p
ropri
ation
s
the
Stat
e
h
as
suff
icien
t
h
inds to
co
ntin
ue t
o pay
St
ate e
mplo
yee
s
for
the
ir
w
ork.”
They
arg
ued
th
at
the
fail
ure to
appr
opri
ate
fund
s fo
r the
pay
men
t of
em
ploy
ee
salaries constituted
an
impa irment
of
the
State’s
contractual obligation
to
pay the union
me
mbe
rs. In
a
dd it
ion
t
hey
ar
gued
that
th
e
Per
sonn
el
Co
de
re
qui r
es
the
S
tate to
prov
ide
“f
air
and
r
easo
nabl
e
c
omp
ensa
tion
”
to
its e
mplo
yees
f
or th
e
serv
ices
the
y
prov
ide.
Se
e
20
I
LCS
41
5 8a
Wes
t
20
14 .
T
he un
ion s
re
ques
ted
a
d
ecla
ratio
n
tha
t
failu
re
to
pay
un io
n
mem
bers
t
heir fu
ll sa
larie
s
co
nstitu
tes an unco
ns ti
tutio
na l i
mpa
irme
nt
of
co
ntra
ct.
3
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
4/18
The
y f
irnhe
r req
ues
ted
prel
imin
ary
an
d p
erma
nen
t injun
ctio
ns d
irect
ing
the
C
omp
troll
er
t
o
iss
ue
pa
yche
cks to u
nion
m
emb
ers.
5
The
ma
iler be fo
re
u
s
is
complicated
by
the
fact
that the
AG filed
a
separate
d
ec la
rato
ry jud
gme
nt
actio
n in C
ook
Co
unty
, ra
ising
d
iffe
rent
issu
es
reg
ardi
ng
the
Stat
e’s
ob l
igati
on to pa
y
all
St
ate
emp
loye
es unti
l
a
new
budg
et
is in p
lace
.
Tha
t
a
ction
w
as
f
iled
on
Ju
ly
ap
prox
ima
tely
16
hou
rs
b
efor
e
the
uni
ons
filed
the
St
.
C
lair C
oun
ty
sui
t at
iss
ue
here
.
W
e
wi
ll
d
iscu
ss
the C
ook
Co
un ty
pr
ocee
ding
s
to
the
exte
nt
that
th
ey a
re
relevant
to the
qu estions
before
us.
1
6 I
n
t
he
Coo
k
C
oun
ty
actio
n, the
A
G so
ugh
t dec
larat
ory an
d in
junc
tive r
elief
aga
inst
th
e
Com
ptro
ller.
The
com
plai
nt
a
lleg
ed
th
at
“
An ac
tual
con
trove
rsy has
a
risen
in
light
of
subs
tanti
al unc
ertai
nty
rega
rdin
g
w
hich
,
if
an
y,
p
aym
ents m
ay
be
au
thor
ized b
y t
he
o
mpt
rolle
r in
the
ab
senc
e
of
annu
al app
rop r
iatio
n
sta tu
tes.”
The
AG
argu
ed
tha
t th
e
o
mpt
rolle
r
do
es no t
ha
ve au
thor
ity
to ap
prov
e
any
p
aym
ents
tha
t are
not
au
thor
ized by
an
app
rop
riatio
ns
bil l o
r o
ther
la
w.
Th
e
AG
ac
know
ledg
ed t
hat
eve
n
with
ou t
an
a
ppro
priat
ions
bi l
l, t
he
C
omp
troll
er is au
thor
ized
and
requ
ired
to pa
y the
sal
aries
of
leg
islat
ive
and j
udic
i l e
mpl
oyee
s an
d
to
m
ake
pay
men
ts
to
em
ploy
ees man
date
d
und
er
the federal Fair
Labor
Standa rds Act FLSA
29
U.S.C.
201 et
seq. .
In
pe rtinent
par t,
th
e F
LSA
man
date
s p
aym
ent
of
th
e fede
ral
min
imu
m
wage
an
d,
wh
ere
app l
icab
le,
ov e
rtim
e.
T
he
AG
re
ques
ted a
de
clara
tion an
d
preli
min
ary
and
pe rm
ane
nt
inju
nctio
ns
dir
ectin
g the
omp
trolle
r
to
pay
Sta
te
em
ploy
ees
no
m
ore
than
is re
qu ir
ed
un
de r
th
e
L
S
or, in
th
e alt
erna
tive, en
joini
ng
her fro
m
issu
ing
pa
yche
cks at a
ll.
4
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
5/18
The
Dep
artm
en t
of
Cent
ral
M
anag
eme
nt Se
rvic
es
CMS
an
d
m
any
o
f
the
un
ions
invo
lved
in
the
St
.
Clai
r Cou
nty
ca
se
inte
rven
ed
in
the
Coo
k C
oun
ty
cas
e.
CM
S
an
d t
he
C
omp
troll
er
sub
mitt
ed af
fidav
its
of
offic
ials
who
would
be
charged with
implementing
the A
G’s
pr
opo
sed o
rde r
.
Thes
e offi
cials
aver
red
th
at
i
t
w
ould ta
ke
m
any
m
ont
hs
fo
r
CM
S
to d
eterm
ine
wh
ich em
plo
yees
w
ere
co
vere
d
b
y
the F
LSA
an
d
adj
us t
the
pa
yroll
syste
m
to r
edu c
e th
e em
ploy
ees’
pay
to
the
fed e
ral
m
inim
um
wa
ge.
T
hey al
so
stat
ed tha
t
d
oing so
w
ou l
d re
quir
e
the
m to
ad
jus t
th
e am
oun
t
of
pa
yro l
l d
edu
ct ion
s an
d
wo
uld
“w reak
havoc”
on
the
State’s
retiremen t systems
8 O
n
July
7,
th
e Co
ok C
ount
y
cour
t
en
tered
a
TR
O
enjo
ining th
e
Com
ptr
oller
fro
m
iss
uing
payc
heck
s b
eyon
d t
he
min
imum
requ
irem
ents
o
f
the
FLS
A.
Th
e
C
omp
troll
er
CMS
an
d
the
un
ions
im
me
diate
ly f
iled
pe t
ition
s
for
revi
ew
and
th
e
C
ook
C
oun
ty
c
ou r
t
en te
red
a
n
ord
er s
tayin
g
the
T
RO
pe
ndin
g
the
Firs
t Dist
rict’s
de
cisi
on
in
th
at
ap
peal
9
Me
anw
hile
in
the
St.
C
lair
Co
unty
pr
ocee
ding
s t
he A
G fil
ed
a
m
otion
to di
sm is
s
the
unio
ns’
com
pl
in t on
J
uly 6
,
argu
ing
tha
t I
the
unio
ns’
s
uit
was
barr
ed b
y
sov
erei
gn
imm
unit
y;
2
the
cou
rt
sh
ould
dec
line
to
hea
r
the
cas
e beca
use
of
the
p
endi
ng C
ook
Co
unty
litig
at ion
;
and
3
the
un
ions
faile
d to
sta
te
a
c
laim
for
im
pa i
rmen
t
of co
ntra
ct
Th
e A
G
arg
ued that
impa irment
of
contract
claims
require legislative action
and
could
n
ot
be prem
ised
on the
leg
islat
ure’
s
fai l
ure
to
a
ct t
o pa
ss a
bud
get.
1
0 On
Ju ly
8, t
he un
ions
file
d the
mot
ion
f
or
a
TRO
tha
t is
at
iss
ue
in
this
ap
peal.
oin
ting
t
o
th
e
e
vide
nce sub
mitt
ed
by
t
he
Com
ptr
oller
and C
MS
in
th
e Co
ok C
oun
ty
cas
e
the
y
alleg
ed
th
at in
ligh
t of t
he
diff
icul
ties CM
S wou
ld
fac
e
in i
ssu i
ng
ch
ecks th
at
com
ply
with
on
ly
the
m
inim
al
r
equi
rem
ents
of th
e
F
LSA
, th
ere
wa
s
n
o
gua
rante
e
tha t
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
6/18
em
ploy
ees w
ould
be
pa
id at
all
Th
ey fu
rthe
r a
llege
d th
at S
tate
em
ploy
ees
ju
stifi
ly
re
lied
on
t
heir p
aych
eck
s
to
m
eet
the
ir
livi
ng ex
pen
ses
On
Ju
ly
9
th
e
C
omp
troll
er
fi
led a
moti
on
to
disqual ify the AG from
representing
he r
an
d
f
or
the ap
po in
tme
nt o
f priva
te
cou
nsel
H
er mo
tion
was
base
d
on th
e
fact
that
the
too
k
a
d
iffer
en t po
sitio
n
in
this li
tigat
ion t
han the
Co
mptr
oller
Th
e
tr
ial
cou
rt
s
ub se
qu en
tly
gra
nted t
his
mo
tion
12
Th e
St C
lair Cou
nty
co
urt he
ld
a
hear
ing o
n Ju
ly
9
an
d en
tered
a
writ
ten
o
rder
on
Ju ly
10
The
court
denied
the
AG’s
motion
to
dismiss
as to
the Comptroller bu t granted
the
mot
ion
to dis
miss
as
to
the
Sta
te
of I
llino
is Th
e
cour
t gran
ted
th
e
uni
ons’ m
otio
n fo
r
a TR
O
In
su
ppor
t of i
ts ruli
ng
on
the
TRO
the
co
urt
foun
d t
hat
t
he
unio
ns a
nd
th
ei r
m
em
bers
hav
e
a
pro
tect
able
rig
ht to b
e pa
id
T
he
co
urt
foun
d t
hat
the
un
ions
d
em o
nstr
ated
a
lik
eliho
od o
f
s
ucce
ss
o
n
th
e m
erit
s noti
ng
tha
t
fa ilu
re
to
pro
vide an
a
pp ro
pria
tion
to
pay
em
ploy
ees
w
ho wer
e requ
ired
to
w
ork imp
aire
d
the Sta
te’s
a
bili
ty
to
fulf
ill its
co
ntrac
tual
ob
liga
tions
The
cour
t fu
rthe r
fou
nd th
at
the
unio
ns
and
t
heir
me
mbe
rs h
ad
n
o
adeq
uate re
med
y
a
t law
noti
ng t
ha t
th
e hard
ship
s
c
ause
d
by
m
issed
p y
chec
ks in
clud
e
no
neco
nom
ic loss
es
In
bala
ncin
g the e
quit
ies
th
e c
ou rt
f
oun
d
t
ha t
Sta
te
employees
and
their
fam ilies should not suffer while the
Governor and legislature
“vie
for
a
r
esul
t
f
avor
able
to
th
eir p
olitic
al a
gen
das”
and th
at
deny
ing
the
mo
tion
cou
ld
exp
ose
th
e
S
tate
to sub
stan
tial
li
ab ili
ty und
er
the EL
SA
w
hich
inc
lude
s rem
edi
es s
uch as
in
teres
t
and
atto
rney fe
es
At
the
requ
es t
of
the C
omp
trol
ler
a
nd
o
ver
th
e
ob j
ec tio
n
of
the
AG
the c
ourt
m
ade
the
TR
O
a
pplic
able
to
all
St
ate e
mpl
oyee
s
not just
u
nion
m
emb
ers
6
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
7/18
On
Ju
ly
13
, the
AG
file
d
a peti
tion
f
or r
evie
w o
f
th
e
TR
O
p
ursu
n t to
Illi
nois
Su
prem
e C
ourt
Ru
le
307
d e
ff.
F
eb. 26,
201
0 . T
he
rul
e pr
ovid
es
tha
t
a
re
view
ing
c
our t
m
ust d
ecid
e
a
pe tit
ion
for
revie
w
of
a TRO
w
ithin
five
days after
the
expiration
of
the
time
for
filing
any
res
pond
ing
m
emo
rand
um
unle
ss
the
cour
t d
eems
it
a
ppro
pria
te to
mod
ify
that
s
ched
ule.
Ill
.
S.
C
t. R
. 30
7 d
4 ,
5
eff.
Feb
.
2
6,
20
10 .
We
f
ind
th
at
c
irc u
msta
nces
dicta
te
th t w
e d
evia
te
fro
m
the
fiv
e-da
y
sche
dule
, and
acco
rdin
gly
we
deem it
appr
op ri
ate
to
mo
dify
tha t
sch
edul
e.
14
On July
14,
the
Comptroller
filed
an
em ergency motion
to
dismiss this appe
al,
a
rguin
g tha
t th
e
AG
lac
ked
the a
utho
rity
to
file
an
ap
pea
l
on he
r
beh
lf
due
t
o t
he
diff
eren
ce s
of
po
sitio
n betw
een
t
he
AG
an
d
C
omp
troll
er
i
n
this
litig
ation
.
As
p
revio
usly
d
iscu
ssed,
the
t
rial
co
urt
gra
nted
the
C
omp
tro l
ler’s
mot
ion
to
d
isqu
alify
th
e A
G
from
rep
resen
ting
her
in
t
his
liti
gatio
n
on
th
at
basis
.
Th
e
AG
ar
gues
tha
t, as
the
St
ate’s
c
hief
legal o
ffic
er,
she
has the
au t
horit
y
to
pu
rsue th
is
appe
al
on
beh
lf
of
the
State
b
ecau
se th
e
S
tate
has
a
s
ubsta
ntia
l
int
eres
t
in th
e ou
tcom
e
of
t
his
liti
gatio
n.
W
e
a
gree
.
5
As the
AG
po in
ts
out, t
he
Sta
te of
Illin
ois
was
di
smis
sed
as
a
p
arty
o
n the
bas
is
of
s
ove
reign
im
mun
ity,
n
ot
bec
ause
it
lac
ks
a
n
in
teres
t in
th
e ou t
com
e
of
th
is l
itiga
tion .
l th
oug
h
th
e AG argues
in
her
pe tition
for review that the cour t erred
in
fa iling
to
dism
iss
the
en tir
e su
it
on
the
bas
is o
f so
vere
ign
im
mun
ity,
no p
arty
h
as
ap
pea
led
t
he
c
ourt’
s
dec
ision
to
gr
nt
the
m
otion
t
o dis
miss
as to t
he
Stat
e.
The
AG
arg
ues
th
at i
t
wou
ld
be
in
cong
ruou
s to
al
low
the
cou r
t
to
dis
miss
the
S
tate as
a party
o
n
th
is b
asis
and
th n
e
nter
“
a
t
em p
orary
res
train
ing
ord
er ad
vers
e to
the
S
tate
tha t
the
St
ate ha s
no
ab
ility
to
ap
pea
l.” W
e
find th
is
a
rgum
ent
lo
gical an
d p
ersu
asive
.
We
a
lso
not
e tha
t,
a
s
the A
G
7
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
8/18
po
ints
o
ut, Illi
nois
co
urts
h
ave
foun
d tha
t non
pa rt
y St
ate
age
ncies
hav
e
sta
nd in
g
to
file
ap
peal
s
in
cas
es
w
here
they
hav
e a
di r
ect and s
ubst
antia
l
int
eres
t
in
the
o
utco
me
ev
en
thou
gh
th
ey
are
no
t nam
ed
as
p
arti
es.
Se
e In
re
O
R
3
29 Ill.
A
pp.
3d
254,
2
57-58
20
02
cit in
g
Pe
ople v
Pi
ne ,
129
Ill. 2d
88
19
89 ,
a
nd
P
eopl
e v
Wh
ite,
1
65
Ill.
Ap
p.
3d
2
49
1988
;
se
e
also
Peop
le ex
re
t Har
tigan
v
E
E
H
aul
ing ,
In
c.,
15
3
Ill
.
2d
47
3, 48
2-
86
199
2 file
a
law
sui
t
on
beha
lf o
f the
S
tate
relat
ing t
o
cont
racts b
etw
een
pr iv
ate
ent
ities
and
a pu
blic
corp
orat
ion ev
en
th
oug
h the
p
ubli
c co
rpor
ation
did
n
ot
file
suit
itse lf .
16 W
e tu
rn
now
to
th
e
m
erit
s
of
the
AG’
s
app
eal.
Sh
e
firs
t arg
ues
tha
t the c
ourt
lacke
d
juri
sdic
tion
to
ente
r the
T
RO
bec
aus
e th
e C
ourt
of C
laim
s
has
ex
clusi
ve
juris
dict
ion
o
ver this l
itiga
tion
.
Thi
s is
so
, she
co
nten
ds, b
ecau
se th
is
is
an
ac
tion
a
ga in
st
th
e
S
tate
of
Ill
inois
bas
ed
o
n contr
acts
b
etwe
en
t
he
Stat
e and
th
e unio
ns.
W
e
di
sagr
ee.
17
As
the AG
po i
nts
ou
t, the
C
ou r
t
o
f C
laim
s
h
as
exc
lusiv
e
j
urisd
ictio
n
ove
r cas
es
invo
lvin
g
“c
laim
s
aga
inst
the
State
fo
unde
d
up
on any
con
tra c
t
e
ntere
d
into
wi th
the
Sta
te
of
Illi
nois
.”
7
05 I
LCS
50
5/8 b
Wes
t 201
4 .
Und
er the
Sta te
Law
suit
Im
mun
ity
A
ct,
the
State
of
Illin
ois
may
n
ot
b
e
sue
d e
xcep
t
a
s
prov
ided
und
er
t
he
Cou
rt
of
C
laim
s
Act or
cert
ain
oth
er sta
tuto
ry
prov
ision
s
not
relevant
here .
See
745
ILCS
5/1
West
2014 .
How
ever
,
unde
r
the
“Stat
e
offi
cer”
e
xcep
tion, c
ircui
t c
ourt
s hav
e
juri
sdict
ion ov
er
law
su its
ag
ains
t of fic
ers
of
t
he St
ate
of
Illin
ois
to
c
omp
el
or enjo
in futu
re
act
ions
wh e
re
the
plai
nt iff
s have
alleg
ed th
at the
off
icer’
s co
nduc
t or
fa
ilure
to
act
viola
tes
a
law
or
co
ns tit
utio
na l
prov
ision
.
See
Wils
on
v
Quin
n, 20
13 IL
A
pp
5th
12
0337
,
14
-15;
Had
ley v
De
part
men
t of
C
orre
ction
s 362
Ill.
App
. 3d
68
0, 683
20
05 .
Th
at
is
pre
cise
ly
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
9/18
w
hat the
un i
ons
ha
ve al
lege
d
here
.
T
hus
, t
he trial
cou
rt
had
ju
risdi
tion
to
en
ter the
ord
er.
1
8
T
he
AG
n
ex t
c
onte
nd s
tha
t
the
cour
t
ab
used
its
disc
re tio
n
b
y
rulin
g
in
this
maile r
due
to the
C
ook C
oun
ty l
itiga
tion
addr
essi
ng th
e s
ame ma
tter. She
argu
es tha
t
the rel
ief
ord
ered
here
con f
licts
with
th
e o
rder e
nter
ed
in
the
Coo
k C
ou nt
y
ca
se.
W
e
are
no
t
per
su d
ed fo
r tw
o reas
ons.
F
irst
the A
G’s s
uit
aga
inst
the
Co
mpt
rolle
r
in
Co
ok
C
ou n
ty
did no
t
ra
ise the
sam
e
ar
gu m
ents the
un
ions
raise
d
in
th
e
St.
Cl
air
Co u
nty
act
ion .
Second the
First District
has
since vacated the Cook County
court’s
TRO
and
remande d
the ma
tter.
T
he
Fir
st Di
stric
t
fo
und
that
th
e
C
ook
Co
unty
cour
t 1
fai
led
to
lim
it
th
e
du
rati
on
o
f
the
TRO
a
nd 2
f
ail ed
to m
ake
fin
ding
s
r
ega r
ding
b
alanc
ing
the e
quiti
es .
It
is
un c
lear
whe
ther
the
Coo
k Co u
nty
c
ourt wi l
l
reach the
same
re
sult on
rem a
nd
up
on
m k
ing t
hose
find i
ngs.
It
is
a
lso
un c
lear
w
he t
he r
th
e Fir
st
D
istr
ict w
ill up
hold
th
e
T
RO
on
app
eal
sho
uld
the C
ook
Cou n
ty c
our t
dec
ide
it i
s
ap
pro
priat
e t
o e
nter
the
o
rde r
afte
r
w
eig
hing
the e
quiti
es.
In
ord
er
for
pay
chec
ks th
at ar
e due o
n
Ju
ly
to
be
issu
ed , CM
S
m
ust b
egin
pr
o es
sing pa
yrol
l
th
is
we
ek.
Th
us,
t
his
is
an extr
em e
ly tim
e sen
sitiv
e
matt
er.
W
e
fin
d th
at it
wa
s appr
opri
ate
for
th
e St.
Clair
C
ount
y
cou
rt
to
r
ule
in
this
m
tte
r r t
he r
tha
n
waiting
for the Cook Cou nty litigat ion
involving
an
orde r that
is
cu
rrent
ly s
taye
d
to
be
reso
lved
.
1
9
Th
e
A
G
furt
he r arg
ues
th t
th
e co
urt
abus
ed its
dis
creti
on
be ca
us e the
unio
ns
did
n
ot es
tabli
sh tha t
the
r
equi
rem
ents
for
issu
ing
a
T
RO
are
pres
en t i
n
thi
s
c
ase.
We
disa
gree
.
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
10/18
¶2
Th
e
pu
rpos
of
a
TRO
is
t
o
pre
serv
e
t
he
stat
us qu
o
unti
l
th
e co
urt
ca
n
ho l
d a
h
ring
t
o
de te
rm in
e
wh
ethe
r a
pre
limin
ary
injun
ctio
n
is
w
arran
ted.
Abdu
lhaf
edh v
S
ecre
tary
o
f
Stat
e, 161
Iii. A
pp.
3
d
413
,
4
16
1
987
). It
is
a
“dr
ast ic
reme
dy”
which
sh
ould
on
ly be gran
ted
“in ex
cept
iona
l cir
cum
stanc
es
an
d f
or
a
b
rief
du
ratio
n.” Ame
rica
n
Fe
derat
ion
of S
tate,
Cou
nty,
Mu
nici
pa l E
mpl
oyee
s v
R
yan
,
332
Iii
. A
pp. 3
d 96
5,
966
20
02
. A
TR
O
is p
rop
er
on ly if
the
cou
rt
find
s
tha
t
1
)
the
par
ty
requ
estin
g
t
he o
rder
has
apro
tecta
ble
righ
t; 2
) th
e pa
rty
wi
ll
su
ffer
irre
para
ble
harm if
th
e T
RO
is
no
t g
ran t
ed;
3)
there
is
no
adequate
remedy
at
law; 4)
there
is
a
likelihood
tha t the party
requesting
the
TRO
w
ill
suc
ceed
on
the
mer
its; an
d
5 )
a b
alanc
e
o
f
th
e equi
ties
fa
vors
iss
uing t
he
TRO
.
Kan
ter
Eisen
berg
v
Ma
dison A
ssoc
iates
,
116
Ill.
2
d 506,
5
10-1
1
1
987
;
Sc
heff
el
C
o.
v
Fess
ler
356
I
ll.
A
pp.
3d 308
, 31
3
20
05)
. On
appe
al,
we
wil
l reve
rse
a
TRO
onl
y
if we
find th
at th
e
trial
co
urt
abus
ed
its
d
iscre
tion
in mak
ing
the
se
find
ings
.
Bra
dfor
d
v
W
yns
tone
Pro
pert
y
Own
ers’
Ass’
n.
355 I
ll.
App
. 3
d
73
6,
739
2 00
5).
2
1 H
ere,
there
is
n
o
rea l d
ispu
te
tha
t
th
e un
ions
,
the
ir me
mbe
rs,
and
oth
er
S
tate
em
ploy
ees
hav
e a
pro
tecta
ble
righ
t
to
be
p
aid
fo
r wo
rk th
ey p
erfor
m.
We
als
o ag
ree
w
ith
t
he co
urt
th
at
St
ate
e
mpl
oyee
s
w
ill
suffe
r
i
rrepa
rabl
e h
arm
if
the
TR
O is
not
gran
ted.
A
s
the
unio
ns
stat
ed
in th ir
motion requesting
the
TRO ,
no one
know s
when
the
budge t
impa
sse
w
ill
end.
Cou
rts
h
ave
fou
nd
that i
rrep
arabl
e
ha
rm
re
sult
s
f
rom
c
on tin
uing
trans
gres
sion
s.
Ha
dley, 3
62
Ill
. A
pp. 3
d a
t 628.
W
e
a
lso
ag re
e tha
t
the
unio
ns’
m
emb
ers
ha
ve
n
o
a
dequ
ate rem
edy
at
la
w.
Stat
e e
mplo
yee
s can
no t b
e
expe
cted
to
br
ing
m
ultip
le
la
wsu i
ts to
atte
mpt
to
pro
tect
t
heir
righ
ts.
See
H
adle
y,
3
62
I
ii.
App.
3
d
at
6S8
-89
. In
addition,
a
s
th
e
trial c
ourt
p
oint
ed o
ut,
ther
e ar
e
co
nseq
uen
ces
tha
t
flo
w fr
om
no t
1
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
11/18
re
ce iv
ing
a
pa y
che
ck
som
e of
w
hich ar
e n
onm
one
tary
in
na t
ure a
nd ca
nn o
t be adeq
uate
ly
rem
edie
d
b
y
a
n
aw
ard
of
da
mag
es. T
he
loss
of
pa
y
will, a
t th
e v
ery
lea
st, cau s
e S
tate
em
plo
yees a
nd
th
eir
fa
mili
es
a
g
ood
dea
l o
f str
ess .
S
ome
ma
y
be
u
nab
le to
make
pay
men
ts on
the
ir ho
mes c
ars,
or
ot
her deb
ts.
W
e
find
no
a
buse
of
di
scre
tion i
n
the
cou
rt’s
deter
min
ation th
at
the
u
nion
s
met
the
ir bu
rden
of
est
ablis
hing
t
hat
they
hav
e a
prote
ctab
le
righ
t, wi
ll suf
fer
irrep
arab
le
ha
rm
wit
hou t
the
in
jun c
tion
an
d ha
ve
no
adeq
ua te
re
med
y a
t law
.
22
The
AG
argues tha t
the
unions not only
have
not show n
a
likelihoo d
of
success
on
the
me
rits
bu
t
hav
e
fa
iled
to
s
tate
a cla
im f
or i
mpa
irm e
nt
o
f
co
ntrac
t. W
e
em
ph a
size
h
ow e
ve r
t
hat
a
pa r
ty
s
eek i
ng a
TR
O
do
es
not
ne
ed
t
o
de m
onst
rate that
it
w
oul
d
be
enti
tled
to
a f
inal j
udgm
ent
at tri
al.
It
is su
ffici
ent
to ra
ise a “
fair
q
uest
ion”
ab
ou t
the
r
ight
to
reli
ef. S
tock
er
H
inge
M
anu
fact
urin
g C
o.
v D
ame
Ind u
strie
s
Inc
.
9
4 Ill
. 2d
53
5, 5
42
1
983
).
As disc
usse
d
pre
viou
sly
th
e
AG
too
k th
e po s
ition
in
t
he
Coo k
Co
unty
case
th
at a
prese
nt co
ntro
vers
y ex
isted
betw
een
h
er
an
d
th
e Co
mpt
rolle
r
d
ue
to
“su b
stant
ial
un
cert
ainty re
gard
ing
w
hich
if an
y,
pa
ym e
nts
ma
y
be
au t
horiz
ed by
t
he
omp
trolle
r
in
the
ab
sen
ce of a
nnu
al ap p
rop
riatio
n
stat
ute s.
” Th i
s i
s,
in
ess
ence
an
ckno
wle
dgem
en t
th
t
th
ere
is
a
t
lea s
t
a
fair
question
as
to
the righ ts
asserted
in
this
l
aw s
uit.
2
3
In
supp
or t
o
f
her a
rgum
en t
to th
e
co nt
rary
the A
G
cite
s
Am
erica
n Fe
dera
tion
o
f
Stat
e, C
oun
ty
Mu
nici
pal Em
ploy
ees
v
Nets
ch, 216
Ill.
App.
3d
5
66
1991
), a
2
4 ye
ar
old
de
cisio
n
o
f the
Fo
urth D
istr
ict .
Wh
ile
Ne ts
ch do
es
pr
ovid
e
sup p
ort
for
the AG’
s
po
sitio
n
we
do
no t find it
to be
c
ontr
ollin
g.
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
12/18
24
In
Ne
tsch
as
here,
th
e legis
latur
e
faile
d to
pass
any
a
ppro
priat
ion bill prior to
the
start
of
the
new
fi
scal ye
ar.
Ne
tsch, 21
6
III
.
Ap
p.
3
d a
t 56
8.
U
nion
s
repr
esen
ting
Sta
te
emp
loye
es f
iled
an
ac
tion
se
ek in
g
a
w
rit
of
m
and
amu
s
com
pe l
ling th
e C
omp
troll
er to
issue
payc
heck
s
to
all
Stat
e
em
plo
yees t
hat
were
du
e to
be
p
aid
on
July
15,
1
991 .
N
etsc
h,
2
16 Ill
.
A
pp.
3d
at
567
.
A
s
au
tho r
ity fo
r
the
pro
pos
ition
tha
t the
C
omp
trol
ler
h
ad
a
cle
ar
d
uty
to is
sue
the
pa
yche
cks t
he pl
ainti
ffs
re
lied
on
sec
tion
3
of
the Stat
e
Com
pt ro
lle r
Act
Il
l. R
ev. S
tat. 1
989
, ch.
1
5,
213
n
ow
a
t
5 IL
CS
40
5/13
W
est
201
4
.
25
The Fourth
District noted
that although
this
statute “describes the means
by
which
the
com
ptro
ller is
req
ui re
d to di
sbur
se
s
alari
es
it i
s not
a
utho
rity fo
r the
exp
endi
ture
of
a
ny
fun
d
o
r fun
ds
w
hich
hav
e not be
en
app r
opria
ted f
or
tha t
purp
ose.
” N
etsch
21
6 I
II.
Ap
p.
3d
a
t 56
8. Th
us,
the
cou
rt fo
und n
o
cle
ar au t
horit
y
for the
C
om
ptrol
ler
to
issu
e
payc
heck
s ab
sent
an app
ropri
ation
s
bi
ll.
N
ersc
h,
2
16
UI
A
pp.
3d
at
568
-69 .
T
he c
our t
w
en t
fu
rther
n
otin
g tha
t iss
uing
p
aych
eck
s
with
ou t
an appr
opri
ation
s
bil
l
“wo
uld c
reat
e
o
bv io
us
p
robl
ems
und
er
the
se
para
tion-
of-p
ow e
rs doc
trine
”
Nets
ch, 21
6 Ill.
A
pp .
3d at
568
, a
nd
stati
ng tha t
the
C
omp
troll
er w
as pr
oh ib
ited
from
issu
ing p
ayc
heck
s
at
tha
t time
Ne
tsch
216 I
ll.
App
. 3d
at 56
9 .
26
Nets
ch p
rovi
de s
ob
viou
s
su
ppo
rt
for the
AG’s
position. How ever we
do
not
be
lieve
it
is
c
ontro
llin
g
for
th
ree
rea
son
s. Fi
rst,
th
e
N
etsc
h
c
ourt
’s
dec i
sion
wa
s
fra
med
by
the
argu
men
ts o
f the
p
artie
s
a
nd
t
he
form
of
re
lief t
he pl
ainti
ffs
so
ugh
t—a
w
rit
of
ma
ndam
us I
n o
rder t
o ob t
ain
a w
rit
of ma
ndam
us
a p
arty
“mus
t es t
ablis
h a
c
lear
r
ight
to
the
re
qu es
ted re
lief ,
a
cle
ar duty
of
the
pu
blic o
ffic
er to a
ct,
an
d
clea
r
au t
horit
y o
f th
e
p
ublic
of f
icer
to
comply
wi
th the o
rder.
”
c
atri
dge
v
Mad
igan
20
13 I
L
113
676,
17
.
1
2
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
13/18
The
uni
ons’
arg
um e
nt here
is no
t
th
at the
C
omp
troll
er
h
as
a cle
r
du
ty
an
d
auth
ority to
a
ct;
ra
ther
th
ey a
rgue
tha t
a f
ailu
re to act
ru
ns
afo
ul
of
the
cons
tituti
onal
p
rohib
itio
n
again
st
imp
airm
en t
of
cont
ract.
T
he
pl
ainti
ffs
i
n
N
ets
ch
d
id
not
ra
ise
the
con
stitu
tion
al
a
rgum
ent
s
rais
ed by th
e un
ions
in
t
his
case
,
and
su
ch ar
gum
en ts
w
ould
n
ot
hav
e be
en
ap
pro
priat
e
in
a
m
and
amu
s
ac
tion
T
hus, wh
ile
the N
etsch
c
ourt rea
ched
t
he
re
sult
adv
anc
ed
b
y
the A
G, it
did no
t re
solv
e
the
q
ue s
tions
invo
lved in
this
ca
se
beca
use
it
was
no
t c
alle
d u
pon
to
do
so.
27
Second the Netsch court
itself
ind ica ted that
in
the event
of a
protrac ted
budget
stan
doff
co
urts
m
ay legi
tima
tely
be
ca
lled
up
on to
inter
vene
. T
he cou
rt st
ated
,
“Wh
ile
we
no
w
hold
tha
t
th
e i
ssue of
g
ener
al
brea
kdo
wn of
go
ve rn
men
t
i
s
no
t befo
re
us, w
e ar
e
no
t say i
ng th
at
th
e
cour
ts
a
re
b
arre
d
from
in
terve
ning i
n the
e
vent th
at th
e
l
egis
lativ
e
or
exe
cuti
ve bra
nch
es
fail to
p
erfor
m the
ir co
nstit
utio
na l
ff
incti
ons.
” N
ets
ch
216
I
ll. A
pp
3d
at
56
9.
2
8 T
he
th i
rd
re
aso
n w
e
d
o not fin
d N
etsc
h
to
be
co
ntrol
ling
is tha
t at l
east one rece
nt
dec
ision
stro
ngly sup
port
s
th
e a
rgum
en t
s
adva
nce
d by th
e
unio
ns
in
t
his
case
.
St
ate
v
me
rican
ed
er t
ion
of Sta
te, C
oun
ty,
M
unic
ipal E
mpl
oyee
s, C
ounc
il 31
invo
lved
a
cont
ract disp
ute
t
ha t
arose
after
the le
gisl
ature enacted
a
budget
that
did
no t
appropriate
suffi
cient
fund
s
to p
ay
emp
loy
ees
i
n
4
Sta
te
ag
enci
es
the
sa
lary in
crea
ses
to wh
ich th
ey
were en t
itled
u
nde
r th eir
coll
ectiv
e
bar
gain
ing ag
reem
en t
s S
tate
v
Ame
rican
ede
r tio
n
of Sta
te,
Co
unty
,
Mu
nicip
al Em
plo
yees
,
Co
uncil
31,
2
014
IL
App
1 st
)
1302
62 ,
8
here
inaft
er
Sta
te C
MS
)). B
ecau
se o
f the
inad
equ a
te
app r
opria
tion
CMS f
roze
the
3
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
14/18
s
alari
es
of
thos
e e
mplo
yee
s
at
the
ir
prev
ious
level
s. Sta
te
CM
S ,
20
14
IL
App
1st
13
026
2,
8
2
9
The un i
on s
soug
ht a
rbitr
ation
, an
d
the
arbi
trato
r rul
ed in
the
ir favo
r. St
ate
CM
S ,
2014
IL
Ap
p 1s
t
1
302
62,
9. T
he
Sta
te
fi
led
a pe
titio
n to
vaca
te
t
he
arb
itrat
ion
awa
rd ,
w
hich
the
tr
ial
cou
rt g
rante
d
in r
eleva
nt p
art. T
he
Sta t
e
appe
aled
tha t
ruli
ng,
a
rgu i
ng
t
hat
the
co l
lecti
ve bar
ga in
ing
a
greem
ent imp
osed
no
bind
ing
oblig
atio
n
on
t
he
Sta t
e bec
au se
the agre
eme
nt
ob lig
ated
t
he
S
tate
t
o
p
ay s
alar
ies
wi th
fi
n s
th
e le
gisla
ture h
ad
n
ot
yet
app ropr iated.
State
CMS ,
2014
IL
App 1st
130262,
In
rejecting
this
argumen t,
th
e
Firs
t
Di
stric
t
fo
und
that
be
caus
e the
leg
islat
ure
app
ropr
iates fin
s
on
a yea
rly
basi
s,
th
e
S
tate’
s p
osit
ion
w
ou l
d
co
mpl
etely
el
imin
ate
the
ab il
ity o
f S
tate
ag
enc i
es
to
en
ter in
to
m
ulti
ye r co
ntra
cts, a
resu
lt at
o
dds
wit
h sta
tuto
ry prov
ision
s.
St
ate
CM
S ,
201
4 I
L
App
1
st
130
262,
37
citin
g
5 I
LCS
3
15/2
1 We
st 2
008
.
30
We
a
ckno
wle
dge
that
the A
G’s
arg
umen
t
here
is
no
t
q
uite
so
exp
ans i
ve.
She
is
not
ar
gu in
g
tha
t
the
State
lack
ed
t
he
au
thor i
ty
to
en te
r
in
to
the
coll
ectiv
e
ba rg
ainin
g
a
gree
men
ts at i
ssue
or
th
at
the
y
a
re in
val i
d; she
a
rgu e
s on
ly tha
t th
e
Com
ptro
ller la
cks th
e
au
thor
ity
to
com
ply
w
ith
the
t
erm s
of
the
c
olle
ctive
b
arga
inin
g
a
gree
men
ts u
ntil a
budg
et
is in
plac
e.
H
owe
ver,
the
end
re
sult
is
the
same.
Accepting
the
State’s
theory
wou ld
al
low t
he
leg
islat
ure “in
eve
ry
appr
opria
tion
s bill
to
imp
air the S
tate
’s o
blig
ation
s
und
er
i
ts co
ntra
cts.”
Em
phas
is ad
ded .
S
tate
C
MS
,
201
4
IL
Ap
p 1s
t
130
262
,
39.
T
he
irst
ist
rict fou
nd th
is r
esult
to be
u
nten
able
.
Sig
nific
antl
y
for
ou
r
pu rp
ose
s, the
cour
t
c
onc
lude
d
tha
t
enfo
rcin
g the
con t
ractu
al
oblig
atio
n to
pa
y
t
he
s
alar
y
inc
rease
s de
spi t
e th
e
in
adeq
ua te
appropriation “fi
rther
s
the
exp r
ess
con
stitu
tiona
l p
olicy for
bidd
ing
t
he
14
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
15/18
General
Assembly
from passing
any
acts, including
insufficient
appropriation
bills,
that
enforcement
of
the
collective
bargaining
agreement
State
CMS , 2014
IL App
1st
13
262
tJ
1-2.
932
We
also
note
that
both
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
and
our
State supreme
court
have
“held
that particular
scrutiny
of legislative
action is warranted
when,
as
here, a
state
seeks
to impair
a contract
to which
it is
itsel
f
a
party
and its
interest [in
doing
so] is
financial ”
In
re
Pension
Reform
Litigation.
2015
IL 118585,
63. It
would hardly
comport
with this
“particular
scrutiny”
to
hold that
the
prohibition
against
impairment
of
contract is entirely
inapplicable
to
governmental
failure
to
act.
33
We do not
decide
the question on the
merits, However,
we find
that persuasive
authority
exists
to
support
the
position
o
f the unions
and
the Comptroller
They have
met
their
burden
of demonstrating
a
likelihood
of success
on
the merits.
impair
the obligation
ofco
ntrac
ts ”
State
C’CAJS .
2014
IL
App 1st
130262,
40 .
9
31
The
AG seeks
to distinguish
this
case
from cases
such
as State
CA/IS,
by
arguing
that
the constitutional
prohibition
against
impairment of contract
applies
only
to
legislative
action—such
as the enactment
o
f an inadequate
appropriations
bill
at
issue
in
Slate
CMS,—and
not
to
legislative
inaction—such
as
the
failure
to
enact
a
budget
at
issue
here.
We
find
this
to be a distinction
without
a
difference
As the
unions
argue
in
response
both
scenarios
lead
to the
same result. Th e AG contends that the
distinction
is
significant
because
the
remedy
for
an
impairment
of ’
contract
is
invalidation
of
the
offending
legislation
We
note, however
that
in
State
CA/IS ,
the remedy
was
15
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
16/18
34
We
turn
to
the last
requirement
for
a TRO—a
balancing
of
the
equities
The
court
found
that
this balancing inquiry’
favors
granting
the injunction and
we agree As
the
court
noted
State
employees
and
their
families
depend
on
their
paychecks
to
pay
their
bills
The Comptroller
and
CM S
have
asserted
that it
will be
virtually
impossible for
them
to
adjust
the
State’s
payroll
system
to
issue
paychecks
that
comply
with
the minimal
requirements
of
the
FLSA
instead
of
checks
that
compensate
employees
at their regular
salaries
Thus
if
the st n off
between
the
Governor
and
legislature
goes on
indefinitely
State
employees
and
their families
could
be left
without resources
to
pay
their
bills and
support
themselves
This
harm
is
severe
and irreparable
35
By
contrast the
AG
argues
that
the
State
will
be irreparably
harmed if
forced to
make
p yments without
an appropriations
bill Significantly
she does
no t
contend that
th e S ta te
lacks
adequate
ifinds
to pay
employees
and
the
unions
have
alleged
that the
State does
have
adequate
fin s available
In other
words the
only
harm
the AG alleges
the
State
might
suffer
is that it
might be
ordered
to pay salaries
it
is
obligated to
pay
before
an
appropriations
bill
is
passed
authorizing
the
payments
This
harm
pales
in
signifi n e
compared
to
the
harm
that
might
be suffered
by
State
employees and
their
families
if
the
TRO
is
not granted
36
Moreover
a decision
not to
ente r the
TRO
would
likely
impose
significant
burdens
on
the State
as
well
As
previously
discussed having
to
alter
the
State’s
payroll
system to comply
with
the
minimal
requirements
of the
FLSA
would
require CM S
to
expend
considerable time
and
resources In
addition liability
for failure
to
do so in
a
timely
m nner
could
be
substantial
Further
if
the
budget
impasse
continues indefinitely
16
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
17/18
and
th
e Co
mpt
rolle
r is
n
ot
al low
ed
to iss
ue
p
aych
ecks
, the S
tate m
ay
be
com
e u
nab
le
to
p
rovi
de cruc
ial
go
vern
ment
al
s
erv i
ces.
The c
ourt d
id n
ot
a
buse
it
s
dis
creti
on
in
find
ing
t
ha t
a
balan
ce
o
f the eq
uiti
es fav
ors
gran
ting th
e TR
O.
3
7 F
inall
y, the
AG
arg
ues
that the
c
ourt co
mm
itted r
ever
sible
err
or b
y
all
owin
g
the
Co
mpt
rolle
r
to be
re
pres
en ted
by at t
orne
ys oth
er
than t
he
AG
.
She co
nten
ds t
hat
thi
s
e
rror
so
“i
nfec
ted th
e T
RO”
tha
t
it
mu
st
be reve
rsed
.
W
e
d
isag
ree .
The
re is “n
o
cle
ar-cu
t
def
initi
ve
ans
wer”
to t
he
issu
e of
the
p
rope
r
pro
cedu
re
to
fo
llow w
hen
a
pub
lic
o
ffici
al
disagrees
with
the attorney
whose
statutory
duty
it is
to
represent
the official.
Suburban
Coo
k Co
unty
Reg
iona
l
Off
ice
of
Edu
catio
n v C
ook C
oun
ty
oar
d
2
82
Ill.
App
.
3d
560,
57
0-71
19
96 .
C
ou rts
h
ave
app r
oved
th
e
a
ppo
intm
ent
of
ind
epen
dent co
unse
l
a
s
a
so
lutio
n to
this p
robl
em .
Pe
op le e
x
ret S
klod
ows
ki v Sta
te, 1
62 Ill.
2d
117,
12
7 1
994
;
Sub
urba
n
C
ook
Co
unty
Re
gion
al Off
ice of
Edu
catio
n,
2
82
III.
App
.
3
d
at
573
.
He
re,
th
e
cour
t
all
ow e
d
the
C
omp
troll
er’s ge
nera
l cou
nsel
a
nd
p
riv a
te
a
ttorn
eys
t
o
repr
esen
t
he r
p
rior to
ma
king
suc
h
an
appo
intm
ent.
How
ever
, ev
en
if
w
e as
sum
e
t
his
wa
s err
or,
th
e
A
G
appe
ared
on
b
ehal
f
of
the
Sta
te
an
d
fully a
nd
vig
orou
sly
a
dvan
ced
th
e
argu
men
ts she
raise
s
in
th
is app
eal.
We
fi
nd no me
rit t
o
he
r
c
onte
ntio
n
th
at
th
e
TR
O mu
st be
r
ever
sed
on
this b
asis
.
38 W
e fi
nd
n
o
abu
se
of the cou
rt’s
di
scre
tion in
ente
ring the
TRO
.
How
ever
,
ther
e
i
s
no
i
ndic
ation
in
the
r
eco r
d tha
t
the co
urt
set a
da
te for
a
he
arin
g
on
a
prel
im in
ary
inju
ncti
on, a
t w
hic
h time
the
TRO
wo
uld
expi
re.
A
T
RO
is an em
erge
ncy
m
eas
ure
whi
ch ,
a
s
no
ted
e
arlie
r,
may
only be
iss
ued
for
a
brie
f du
ratio
n.
Ab
dulh
afed
h, 161
Ill.
App.
3d
at
416.
f
a
TRO
is
en tered exp
arte
it
may n
ot
be
i
n
e
ffect
for lo
nge r
tha
n
10
7
-
8/20/2019 5th District Illinois Appellate Court Order
18/18
days. Abdulhafedh .
161
UI. App.
3d
at
416.
Although
this specific limit
is
not applicable
where
as
here
a
TR O
is
issued with notice
to
the opposing
party
the
TR O
must
s ti ll be
o limited
duration.
Abdulhafedh
161
III.
App.
3d at 4 16 17.
Here
the
TR O doe s not
explicitly
contain an
expiration
date
and
it
appears
on
the
record
before us
that
no
h ring
date has
been
set
for
a
preliminary
injunction.
“To
allow
a TR O
o
unlimited
duration
is
to
have
a
preliminary
injunction
without allowing
the defendant
a fair
opportunity
to
show
wh y
the injunction
should
not be
issued.”
Abdulhafedh
161
Ill.
App.
3d at 417.
Thus we remand
this
matter
to
the
trial
court
with
directions to
set
a
date
for a h ring
it has no t
already
done
so.
39
Motion
to
dismiss
denied;
order affirmed;
cause
remanded with directions.
18