Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

04-1391 Champine, et al. v. Milwaukee County

By: dmc-admin//March 21, 2005//

04-1391 Champine, et al. v. Milwaukee County

By: dmc-admin//March 21, 2005//

Listen to this article

“We conclude that when the County amended M.C.G.O. § 17.184 in 2000, it did not create a unilateral promise of benefits to the Class for any specific period of time beyond the time the promise remained in effect. The County, therefore, did not breach a contract or unilateral promise by prospectively amending its accrued sick allowance policy.”

However, we conclude that those members of the Class who have not yet retired are entitled, upon retirement, to a payout consistent with the terms of the 2000 Ordinance of their sick leave allowance that had accrued as of March 14, 2002, and is not used prior to retirement.

“Although an employee does not automatically have the right to be paid for accrued sick allowance, an employer may provide a payout provision. Where that occurs, as in this case, such a benefit represents a form of deferred compensation that is earned as the work is performed. The benefit can be changed, but only as it is related to work not yet performed.”

In addition, we reject the Class’s argument predicated on promissory estoppel.

“[W]e reject the Class’s argument that it is entitled to apply the sick allowance policies in effect through March 14, 2002, to the remainder of 2002, 2003 and 2004. There is no evidence to support the Class’s assertion that any member of the Class chose, before February 2002, to forego specific employment elsewhere in reliance on the expectation that the sick allowance benefit would continue through 2004. Without such evidence, summary judgment dismissing this claim for post-March 14, 2002, injury was proper.”

Based upon the foregoing reasons, we reverse that portion of the judgment denying Class members who have not retired the right to seek, upon retirement, a payout of their sick allowance, consistent with the provisions of the 2000 Ordinance, that had accrued as of March 14, 2002, and is not used prior to retirement.

We affirm the remainder of the judgment and remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment consistent with this opinion.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Pekowsky, J., Kessler, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: K. Scott Wagner, Milwaukee; J.P. Fernandes, Mequon; Jacques C. Condon, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Alan M. Levy, Milwaukee

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests