WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2482

PEN CD-CHI POLICE-DISABILITY

104th Regular Session Introduced by Stephanie Kifowit

Establishes a presumption that Chicago police are disabled for pension purposes if disability benefits are applied for and the employer denied reinstatement due to incapacity.

Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2482

Summary — HB 2482 (PEN CD-CHI POLICE‑DISABILITY)

Note on source material: The materials provided include text for two different bills both labeled HB 2482 (an Arizona condominium/rental disclosure amendment and an Illinois police‑pension bill). The title you gave — “PEN CD‑CHI POLICE‑DISABILITY” — matches the Illinois pension bill. The summary below focuses on the Illinois measure (sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Kifowit). If you want the Arizona condominium bill summarized instead, say so and I will produce that summary.

Overview / Purpose

This bill amends the Illinois Pension Code (Chicago Police Article) to create a statutory presumption that a policeman who applies for disability benefits and has been denied reinstatement by his/her employer because of physical or mental incapacity is “disabled” for purposes of pension disability benefits. It is intended to limit denials of disability benefits based on employer actions that decline to reinstate medically or mentally incapacitated officers.

Key provisions

  • Adds Section 5-156.5 to the Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/5-156.5):
    • Establishes a presumption that a policeman is disabled for pension purposes if the policeman applied for disability benefits and the employer denied reinstatement due to physical or mental incapacity.
    • Prohibits denial of a disability benefit to a policeman who otherwise meets the statutory requirements unless and until the employer either (a) reinstates the policeman as a policeman or (b) offers the policeman a limited‑duty position.
    • Provides that any policeman who was denied a disability benefit after the effective date of the amendatory Act without an offer of reinstatement or a limited‑duty position is entitled to disability benefits.
  • Adds an “exempt mandate” to the State Mandates Act (30 ILCS 805/8.49) specifying that the State is not required to reimburse units of local government for costs created by this Act.
  • Effective immediately upon becoming law.

Who is affected

  • Primary: Chicago policemen (members of the Chicago Police Article of the Illinois Pension Code) who apply for disability pension benefits.
  • Secondary: Employers (the City/Chicago Police Department) — affects their obligations around reinstatement offers and limited‑duty positions and could increase pension payouts.
  • Pension funds and taxpayers may be affected indirectly through changes in benefit payments and pension fund obligations.

Potential impact and implications

  • Administrative/legal: Reduces an employer-based basis for denying disability pensions where an employer refuses to reinstate a medically incapacitated officer; may increase successful disability claims and potential retroactive benefit awards.
  • Fiscal: Likely increases near‑term disability pension expenditures for the affected pension fund(s). The bill explicitly exempts the mandate from state reimbursement, so local entities (or the pension fund) would bear costs.
  • Operational: Employers may respond by (a) offering limited‑duty positions to avoid immediate disability payouts or (b) reinstating officers where appropriate; could prompt policy changes around medical accommodation and limited-duty job offers.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Bill text adds 40 ILCS 5/5-156.5 and 30 ILCS 805/8.49.
  • Effective date: upon becoming law (immediate effect).
  • Sponsor (Illinois): Rep. Stephanie A. Kifowit. (Materials also listed Laurin Hendrix — likely from the separate Arizona filing.)
  • Current status (as provided): introduced in early February 2025 and read/referred in the legislative process (see documents for exact committee actions and dates).

If you want: I can (a) produce a parallel concise summary of the Arizona condominium/rental disclosure amendment that appears in your packet, or (b) expand the analysis of fiscal and legal impacts (estimated cost implications, likely administrative responses, or sample scenarios). Which would you prefer?

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.