Martin v. Department of Employment Security

Summary Rule 23 order filed NO. 5-06-0478
August 8, 2007;
Motion to publish granted IN THE
September 17, 2007.
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________________
HELEN MARTIN, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Effingham County.
)
v. ) No. 06-MR-8
)
THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT )
SECURITY, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT )
SECURITY, and THE BOARD OF REVIEW, ) Honorable
) James J. Eder,
Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, presiding.
________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE SPOM ER delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff, Helen Martin, appeals an order of the circuit court of Effingham County
that affirmed a decision of the Board of Review (the Board) of the Illinois Department of
Employment Security (IDES) to deny unemployment insurance benefits to the plaintiff. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The facts in this case are undisputed and easy to summarize. The plaintiff began to
receive social security retirement benefits in 1999. From September 19, 2004, until August
17, 2005, the plaintiff was employed by Wal-Mart. Following her discharge from that
employment, the plaintiff filed an application for unemployment insurance benefits with
IDES pursuant to the Unemployment Insurance Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 405/100 et seq.
(West 2004)). Had she been eligible for benefits, the plaintiff would have received $72 per
week. However, a claims adjudicator for IDES found the plaintiff ineligible for benefits
because the plaintiff was receiving disqualifying income, in the form of a portion of her
social security retirement benefits, that exceeded her potential unemployment insurance
1
benefit amount. An IDES hearing referee affirmed the decision of the claims adjudicator.
The decision of the hearing referee was in turn affirmed by the Board.
Although in her appeals below the plaintiff argued that a social security offset against
her potential unemployment insurance benefits was unconstitutional, before this court the
plaintiff has neither raised nor briefed the issue of constitutionality. Accordingly, the
plaintiff has waived the consideration of that argument on appeal. See 210 Ill. 2d R.
341(h)(7) (points not argued in an opening brief are waived and shall not be raised in the
reply brief, in oral argument, or in a petition for rehearing). The sole issue before this court
on appeal is whether the Board erred when it found that Wal-Mart, the plaintiff's most recent
employer, was her "base-period employer" for purposes of determining if the plaintiff was
eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The plaintiff contends Wal-Mart was not her
base-period employer because Wal-Mart did not contribute to the retirement benefits she is
now receiving, which are based upon her employment with other employers prior to her
retirement from the work force in 1999, and because her retirement benefits did not change
when she began employment with Wal-Mart in 2004. She concedes that Wal-Mart was her
chargeable employer as that term is defined in relevant regulations and statutes, but she takes
issue with the finding that Wal-Mart was also her base-period employer.
The plaintiff's argument, although not well-developed, appears to be based on the
mistaken premise that the term "base period" encompasses only the years during which an
employee worked prior to beginning to receive social security retirement benefits and that
accordingly a base-period employer can be only an employer that contributed to an
employ ee's future retirement benefits prior to that employee becoming eligible for those
retirement benefits. Accordingly, the plaintiff appears to argue that once an individual
becomes eligible for retirement benefits, no future employer can be a base-period employer
and that any finding to the contrary is legally erroneous. The plaintiff cites no legal authority
2
for this proposition, nor is this court aware of any legal authority in support of the plaintiff's
position. To the contrary, as the defendants note, the Act clearly defines the base period as
the period of time examined to determine whether the claimant earned sufficient wages to
qualify for unemployment benefits and, if so, the amount of those benefits. 820 ILCS
405/237(A), 401 (West 2004). The "base-period employer" is the employer who pays wages
to the claimant during this eligibility period. It is undisputed that Wal-Mart is the employer
who paid wages to the plaintiff during the time period immediately prior to her claim for
unemployment insurance. Accordingly, the Board did not err in concluding that Wal-Mart
was the plaintiff's base-period employer. Put simply, the term "base-period employer"
means, for purposes of determining eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, the
employer who paid wages during the base period for which benefits are claimed, and it has
nothing to do, as the plaintiff presumes, with the period of time during which a claimant may
or may not have been working toward eligibility for social security retirement pay benefits.
Furthermore, there is no requirement, as the plaintiff presumes, that the base-period
employer's contributions to the social security retirement plan affect either an unemployment
insurance benefits claimant's eligibility for social security retirement benefits or the amount
of social security retirement benefits the claimant receives. See 56 Ill. Adm. Code
§2920.70(b)(5) (eff. March 3, 1994).
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the circuit court of Effingham County is
affirmed.
Affirmed.
STEW ART and W EXSTTEN, JJ., concur.
3
NO. 5-06-0478
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
___________________________________________________________________________________
HELEN MARTIN, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Effingham County.
)
v. ) No. 06-MR-8
)
THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT )
SECURITY, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT )
SECURITY, and THE BOARD OF REVIEW, ) Honorable
) James J. Eder,
Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, presiding.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Summary Rule 23 Order Filed: August 8, 2007
Motion to Publish Granted: September 17, 2007
Opinion Filed: September 17, 2007
___________________________________________________________________________________
Justices: Honorable Stephen L. Spomer, J.
Honorable Bruce D. Stewart, J., and
Honorable James M. Wexstten, J.,
Concur
___________________________________________________________________________________
Attorney Helen Martin
for 10569 Aminoff Drive
Appellant Effingham, IL 62401
___________________________________________________________________________________
Attorney Rachel Hoover, Assistant Attorney General, 100 West Randolph Street, 12th
for Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
Appellees
___________________________________________________________________________________