Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Alta Frost v. Illinois

21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 277 Illinois Court of Claims Filed June 11, 1952 No. 4471
Disposition: (No. 4471-Claimant awarded $204.00.) Award: $204.00
Cite as: Alta Frost v. Illinois, 21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 277 (1952)
Legacy General 21 awarded 1950s Alta Frost v. Illinois 21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 277 June 11, 1952 (No. 4471-Claimant awarded $204.00.) /opinions/v21-p0305-1/

ALTA FROST, Claimant, v. STATEOF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought back pay for 47 days after being reinstated by the Civil Service Commission. The court awarded $204.00 for a 30-day unlawful discharge, excluding a 17-day suspension that did not require a hearing.

Claim type: Employment Back Pay

Cases cited: Ernest E. Frost case

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. CIVIL S ERVICE ACT-payment of salary during period of unlawful discharge. Where an employee was reinstated by the Civil Service Commission, an award for salary for the period of the unlawful discharge was made on authority of Ernest Frost vs. State of Illinois, supra. .,
  2. Sam- suspension for less than thirty days. No recovery can be had for salary during period of unlawful suspension, where the period of unlawful suspension does not exceed thirty days.

The claimant, Alta Frost, seeks to recover wages for forty-seven days by reason of a ruling of the Civil Service Commission reinstating her to her position. The amount claimed is $306.00.

This case is controlled by the opinion in the Ernest E. Frost case. Claimant, Alta Frost, and Ernest E. Frost are husband and wife, and apparently are employed together as house parents, and the removal or discEarge of one involves the other.

There is one exception in this case. The first suspension notice was for a period of seventeen days, and did not involve or require a hearing before the Commission, and was not a discharge as she admittedly was paid in September for eight days. Her discharge was effective by the second suspension notice, setting forth a suspension from September 9,1949 to October 8,1949. For this reason, the susp ion being for less than thirty days, no recovery can be had for this period of seventeen days, being the period from. August

. 15, 1949 to August 31, 1949.

[*278] Claimant, however, is entitled to an award for her unlawful discharge covering the period of thirty days, from September 9, 1949 to October 8, 1949 in the amount of $204.00.

An award is, therefore, entered in favor of the claimant in the amount of $204.00.

Official volume 21 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: July 1, 1951–April 30, 1954)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.