Firefighters David Barron and Michael Lynch, filing on behalf of a class, alleged that the City of Chicago improperly manipulated promotional procedures for lieutenant positions. For decades, the City’s practice involved creating an eligibility list from examination scores and promoting candidates in rank order as vacancies arose. A 2009 eligibility list included the plaintiffs. After promoting 41 candidates from this list in April 2022, the City abruptly retired the list. The firefighters alleged this action was taken to prevent the next candidate in line — a staunch political opponent of the mayor — from being promoted. The City later reinstated the list and promoted another 41 firefighters in November 2022, but subsequently retired the list again in early 2023 without promoting the remaining 26 eligible candidates. The firefighters sued, alleging breach of contract and related claims under the City’s 2013 Hiring Plan, which outlined procedures for creating and retiring eligibility lists. They sought orders to reinstate the 2009 list, promote the affected firefighters, and award compensatory damages.
The City moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The City contended the dispute was actually about the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local 2. Under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, such disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Illinois Labor Relations Board and must be resolved through the CBA’s grievance and arbitration process. The CBA contained extensive language on promotions, providing they “shall be made from established lists resulting from job related examinations,” detailed when employees could be passed over, and outlined a “performance selection process.” The CBA’s grievance procedure covered “[a]ny grievance or dispute which may arise between the parties, including the application, meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.” Furthermore, the Act mandates that a CBA “shall supersede any contrary statutes, charters, ordinances, rules or regulations relating to wages, hours and conditions of employment.”
The firefighters argued their lawsuit was based solely on the separate Hiring Plan, a document created under a federal court settlement to prevent political patronage. They noted that the CBA was silent on the specific procedure for retiring an eligibility list, which the Hiring Plan addressed by allowing retirement “at the discretion of the Fire Commissioner” provided justification is documented. They asserted their claims therefore did not require CBA interpretation and were properly addressed in court.
The circuit court disagreed and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding the claims preempted by the Act.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that resolving the firefighters’ core complaint — that they were improperly passed over for promotion — would necessarily require “interpretation and application of the provisions of the CBA.” While the Hiring Plan provided details on list retirement, the CBA comprehensively governed the promotion process, including how lists are created, how candidates are selected or passed over, and the remedies for being passed over. The Court found the CBA was not silent on the relevant subject matter.
The Court rejected the argument that the Hiring Plan was a separate, controlling agreement. It noted the Act and the CBA itself establish the CBA as the supreme governing document. The CBA’s “Entire Agreement” clause stated it was the complete agreement between the parties, and the Act specifies that a CBA supersedes contrary rules or regulations. Moreover, the Hiring Plan itself repeatedly deferred to the CBA, stating candidates would be considered in rank order “unless otherwise provided for by the CBA.”
Finally, the Court emphasized the firefighters had not exhausted their administrative remedies. The CBA’s grievance procedure provided a path to final and binding arbitration, which they were required to follow before turning to the courts.
Barron v. City of Chicago, 2025 IL App (1st) 240066, 42 PERI ¶ 56.