A recent Law 360 story by Celeste Bott, “Court Must Weigh if Ill. Wage Law Provides For Atty Fees”, reports that an Illinois appellate court held that a former police officer isn't entitled to attorney fees under the settlement reached in his wage suit with a Chicago-area village, instructing the circuit court to consider on remand whether he can recover the fees under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Former officer David Graham contends he's entitled to attorney fees under the Illinois wage law, which provides workers can recoup fees in a successful civil action brought by "any employee not timely paid wages, final compensation, or wage supplements by his or her employer." Graham, who reached a settlement with the village of Dolton after a benefits dispute, argues that Employee Disability Act benefits constitute "wages," according to the appellate court.
The village had countered that Employee Disability Act benefits are not considered "wages" because they do not compensate employees for work "actually performed," according to the opinion. The panel said the circuit court never addressed Graham's arguments that he is entitled to attorney fees under the Wage Payment and Collection Act, remanding with directions to consider whether he could recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to the statute.
In Illinois, each party is responsible for his own attorney fees, and the settlement agreement didn't contain a contractual fee-shifting provision that puts the village on the hook for more than $100,000 in fees and costs, the panel said. Graham had argued that the entire agreement constituted a "contractual undertaking," and that the lower court had relied on a section of that agreement that states that the parties acknowledged he was "the prevailing party for purposes of his petition for [attorney] fees and costs," according to the opinion.
"Although this provision provides that plaintiff is the prevailing party for purposes of his fee petition, it does not expressly provide that the parties agreed that plaintiff, as the prevailing party, is entitled to recover attorney fees from defendant in the underlying action," the panel said. But in the very next section of the agreement, the parties did expressly set forth which party was responsible for attorney fees if either side has to file suit for a breach of the settlement deal, the court said.
"If a party is forced to file a breach of contract action, the agreement provides that the prevailing party in that action would be entitled to reasonable attorney fees," the court said. "Because this case is not an enforcement action, section six of the agreement does not apply."