Reemployment After Retirement: Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Denial of Second Article 3 Pension for Rehired Officer
The case of Kooistra v. Sycamore Police Pension Fund was decided on November 14, 2025. This case involved an appeal by Shawn Kooistra against the Board of Trustees of the Sycamore Police Pension Fund, which denied his application for membership into the Sycamore Police Pension Fund. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Pension Board.
The history of the case is as follows: Shawn Kooistra was first employed by the Roselle Police Department beginning on March 4, 1997, and retired as deputy chief of police on January 2, 2024. He began receiving a retirement pension from the Roselle Police Pension Fund the next day. On January 4, 2024, he was hired as a patrol officer for the Sycamore Police Department and applied for membership in its pension fund. The Sycamore Police Pension Fund denied his application, citing section 3-124.1(b) of the Illinois Pension Code, which they interpreted as making him ineligible to enter the Article 3 Pension Fund because he was already receiving a pension from another Article 3 Pension Fund, namely the Roselle Police Pension Fund. The Pension Fund’s decision was based on its interpretation of section 3-124.1(b) of the Pension Code. Under that section, the Board concluded that because plaintiff was receiving pension payments from the Roselle Police Pension Fund and had reentered active service with the Sycamore Police Department after January 1, 2019, he could continue receiving his Roselle Police Pension payments but was only eligible to participate in a defined contribution plan for Sycamore, not the Pension Fund’s defined benefit plan.
The Illinois Appellate Court reviewed this case de novo, focusing on the statutory interpretation of Section 3-124.1(b) of the Pension Code. The Court agreed with the Pension Board’s interpretation that section 3-124.1(b) applies to officers who retire from one municipality, collect a pension, and then re-enter active service in another municipality after January 1, 2019. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent to prevent “double dipping” by requiring participation in a defined contribution plan instead of accruing a second pension in another Article 3 pension fund.
Kooistra v. Sycamore Police Pension Fund, Illinois Appellate Court, 2nd District
Decided November 14, 2025