Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Mary C. Fortin v. State of Illinois

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 961 Illinois Court of Claims Filed June 27, 1979 No. 79-CC-0772
Disposition: (No. 79-CC-0772 - Claimant awarded $50.16.) Award: $50.16
Cite as: Mary C. Fortin v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 961 (1979)
General Court of Claims 32 awarded 1970s Mary C. Fortin v. State of Illinois 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 961 June 27, 1979 (No. 79-CC-0772 - Claimant awarded $50.16.) /opinions/v32-p1068-1/

Mary C. Fortin, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIs, Respondent.

Headnotes

  1. STATE EMPLOYEE Back SALARY CLAIMS-Payment of back pay due

This cause comes before this Court as a result of a reconsideration of a job audit by the Director of Personnel. This claim is for retroactive pay as a result of the reallocation of the Claimant’s job reclassification.

The Respondent, represented before this Court by the Office of the Attorney General, submitted a stipulation which is as follows:

“Now comes the Respondent by William J. Scott, Illinois Attorney General, William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General of Record and stipulates in the above captioned matter as follows:

1. This case arises as a result of a reconsideration of a job audit. The reallocation was approved by the Director of Personnel and pursuant to Rule 1-30 was held to be effective on March 16, 1976.

2. The issue before this Court in this case is whether the awarding of retroactive salary as a result of a reallocation of job classification violates the prohibitions set forth in Ch. 127, para. 145 which in part provides as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State .. ., shall be considered a full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll... and no additional sum shall be paid... which payments would constitute in fact and additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made,...’ 3. The above issues were dealt with fully in the case of Claire Crawford, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl._, and is dispositive of the issues presented by this case.

4. The Court in Claire Crawford, supra, decided that the misclassification amounted to an administrative error and that an award should be granted consistent with the Department of Personnel’s application of Rule 1-30.

5. Wherefore, Respondent consents to an award in the amount of $50.16 subject to appropriate added benefits and deductions and withholdings as required by law and the rules and regulations of the State of Illinois for retirement, F.I.C.A. and income tax withholdings.”

This Court concurs with the Attorney General and hereby grants an award to Mary C. Fortin in the amount of $50.16 subject to the appropriate added [*4361] $5 OE t EOE SV ARES ON Re te ee nen eqrpes EPSP TAS PT ETS L PLT SSS benefits and deductions and withholdings as required by laws, rules and regulations of the State of Illinois for retirement, F.I.C.A. and income tax withholdings.

CASES IN WHICH ORDERS OF DISMISSAL

WERE ENTERED WITHOUT OPINIONS

73-92 73-147 73-297

Wilburn Williamson

John E. Edwards

Peter Albert and Mary Albert

Frank Scarcelli

Clyde R. McMillin and Catherine McMillin

Hildegard Ross

Raymond Davis

Roy E. Miller

Mrs. Lee Miller

Edward Piotrowski and Ann Piotrowski Raymond F. Suerig and Ruth J. C. Suerig

Joseph Nastasio, A/K/A Anthony Noletti

Elizabeth Gribbon

Donald Vruels and Margaret E. Vruels

Clidell Stevenson

Eugene F. Shockey

John Hegarty

Eldon Kuhn

Juanita M. Wall

Mabel Louise Harrington

Vera G. Roberts

Jerry Betts

Anthony A. Bloemer

John Botica

Sylvia M. Novak

Edward Harold Lockhart

Gateway Transportation Co., Inc., a corporation, Home

Insurance Company

Donald E. Burkett

Joan Adams

Wayne Sales Financial Corporation

Official volume 32 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1978 – July 1, 1977–June 30, 1978; Fiscal Year 1979 – July 1, 1978 – June 30, 1979)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.