The Illinois Appellate Court has ruled that the City of Monmouth can pursue a private right of action to recover disability benefits paid to a former employee, Justin Thomas, who allegedly engaged in secondary employment while receiving those benefits. This decision could have significant implications for public employers in similar situations.
The case, City of Monmouth v. Thomas, was filed under docket number 2-26-0174. The dispute arose after the City claimed that Thomas received $55,370.66 in disability benefits under the Public Employee Disability Act while he was employed elsewhere. The court's ruling allows the City to seek recovery of these funds, which it argues were wrongfully obtained by Thomas.
The City of Monmouth, the plaintiff in this case, filed its initial complaint against Thomas in December 2023. The City alleged that Thomas had forfeited his right to disability benefits by taking on secondary employment starting on February 10, 2023. In January 2025, the City amended its complaint to include a count asserting an implied right of action under the Public Employee Disability Act, as well as an alternative claim of unjust enrichment.
In response, Thomas filed a motion to dismiss the City's claim for an implied right of action, arguing that the Act was designed to protect injured workers, not municipalities. He contended that the City was not part of the intended beneficiary class of the statute and that the Act already provided mechanisms to address situations of secondary employment. The trial court agreed with Thomas and dismissed the City's claim.
However, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision, stating that the City does, in fact, have a private right of action under the Act. The court emphasized that the Act includes provisions that specifically address the forfeiture of benefits when an employee engages in secondary employment. Justice DeArmond, delivering the opinion of the court, stated, "The Act was designed not only to compensate first responders for duty-related injury, but to prevent the injury the City seeks to remedy."
The court also noted that the City is a member of the class intended to benefit from the Act, which aims to prevent double compensation for employees who are disabled and receiving benefits. The ruling highlighted that allowing the City to pursue an implied right of action is consistent with the Act's purpose of protecting public employers.
In its analysis, the court applied the four factors established by Illinois Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a private right of action could be implied. The court found that the City’s injury—the payment of benefits to an employee who was not entitled to them—was indeed an injury the Act was designed to prevent. The court also concluded that implying a private right of action would provide an adequate remedy for violations of the statute.
The ruling has significant implications for public employers in Illinois. It clarifies that municipalities can seek recovery of improperly paid disability benefits when employees engage in secondary employment while receiving those benefits. This decision may encourage public employers to be more vigilant in monitoring employee compliance with the Act.
Moving forward, the City of Monmouth will proceed with its case against Thomas to recover the funds it claims were wrongfully obtained. The court has remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. It remains to be seen whether Thomas will appeal the ruling or if there are any related cases pending that could affect this decision.