Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

John K. Cargile v. State of Illinois

34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 280 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1981-02-13 No. 81-CC-1230
Disposition: (No. 81-CC-1230-Claimant awarded $2,853.75.) Award: $2,853.75
Cite as: John K. Cargile v. State of Illinois, 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 280 (1981)
General Court of Claims 34 awarded 1980s John K. Cargile v. State of Illinois 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 280 1981-02-13 (No. 81-CC-1230-Claimant awarded $2,853.75.) /opinions/v34-p0380-1/

JOHN K. CARGILE, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought back salary due to lapse of appropriation, but the court amended its opinion to reflect that the claim was for a tort settlement arising from an alleged civil rights violation. The court awarded $2,500.00.

Claim type: Civil Rights

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. T YRONE C. F AHNER , Attorney General (S ANDRA ANDINA, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent. STATE EMPLOYEES BACK SALARY CLAIMs-Claimant was entitled t o back salary due to lapse of appropriation. An award of $2,500.00 with deductions for certain employee contributions and withholdings was granted for back salary due to the lapse of appropriations for the period during which the debt was incurred.
  2. C IVIL RIGHTS-award previously entered for back sahry w a s amended to represent damages for a tort. The original opinion filed in the case was amended and the award was modified where the claim was not for lost wages but arose out of an alleged violation of the Claimant’s civil rights for which a complaint was filed but for which the appropriated funds for payment had lapsed or for which there were no funds appropriated.

This court finds that this claim is for back salary due to the lapse of the appropriation for the period during which the debt incurred, the same having been confirmed by the written report of the Department of Transportation.

After having reviewed the ,record in this matter including the joint stipulation of the parties, we find that Claimant is entitled to back salary in the amount of $2500.00 plus employer contributions of $353.75 which should be disbursed by the comptroller and credited as follows:

1671.25 Claimant

100.00 State Employees Retirement System

187.50 State Employees Retirement System-State

Contribution

166.25 State Employees Retirement System-State

Contribution FICA

166.25 FICA Tax Fund

62.50 State Withholding Tax

500.00 Treasurer, State of Illinois-Federal Income Tax [*282] It is, therefore, ordered that Claimant be and is hereby awarded the total employee benefit of $2853.75 (two thousand eight hundred fifty-three and 75/100) to be disbursed and credited in accordance with our above finding.

AMENDED OPINION

ROE, C. J. On February 13,1981, this Court rendered an opinion granting an award of $2,853.75, said sum representing $2,500.00 in back salary plus and minus certain employer contributions and employee withholdings for a total employee benefit of $2,853.75. Upon prompt notification given us by attorneys for both parties and our own independent examination of the claim, we find that the award in this case should represent damages for a tort. It was not a claim for lost wages but a settlement arising out of an alleged violation of Claimant’s civil rights, for which a complaint had been filed in Federal district court. Because either the appropriated funds for payment had lapsed or there were no funds appropriated for payment of this type of matter, Claimant filed in this Court to collect the sum settled for. We approved the settlement but erroneously modified the award as described above.

We hereby amend our opinion of February 13,1981, and order Claimant to be awarded the sum of $2,500.00.

Official volume 34 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1981 – July 1, 1980–June 30, 1981)  ·  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.