## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243 , 10

- 2814 & 10

- 2921 J OHN M ARCATANTE, et a l., P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO, I LLINO IS, a m uni ci palc o r po r at i o n, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C0328

— Ch arl es P. K oc oras, Judge .
A RG UE D M AY 2, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 24, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. The pl ai nti ff s a re r eti re d C i ty ofChica go em plo yee s w h o w ere m em ber s o fse ver al tr ad e u n ion s. T h ey w er e o ffer ed inc en tiv es to ret ire ea rly unde r a n Ea r l y Re ti r ementI nc en tiv e Pr o g r am ( ERI P) an d d id so in e ar ly 2 00 4 w h ile th eir u n ion s w e r e s till nego ti ati ng new C ol l ecti ve Barga i ni ng Agree m ents ( CB A s) forthe 2003-2007per i od. Duri ng the nego ti ati on2 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 pr o ce s s , th e 1 99 9- 20 03 CBAs g o ve r ne d the pa r ti es ’ r el at i o nsh ips. I n 200 5, aftertwo ye ar s o fnego ti ati ons, the City and unions ag re ed to m ake r ai ses r etr oac ti ve to J uly20 03, but o nl y forcurr ent e m plo yee s, em plo yee s l ai d offwith re cal l r i ghts, and sea sonalem plo yee s e l i gibl e fo r re hi re , n o t f o r th e p lain tiff re tir ee s. T h e p lain tiffs br ou gh t t h is clas s acti on cl ai m i ng ent i tl em ent t o re tr oac ti ve w age i ncr e a s e s b e t we e n J ul y 2 0 0 3 a nd the i r r e t i r e men tda tes
. T he certified cl a s s cons ists ofcoali tion un ion m em bers who reti r ed unde r the ERI P b etwee n J ul y 2 00 3 an d J uly20 05. The parti es fi l ed cr oss - m oti ons f or s u m m ar y j ud gm en t. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the Ci ty ’ s m otion o n the pl aint i ffs’ fede ral claim s (du e proc ess an d equ al pro te cti o n) and s t a t e l a w b r e a c h o fe xp r e s s c o nt r a c tc l a i m. T he co urt, how ever, granted sum m a r y j ud gm en t to the p lai nt iffs on thei r sta te l aw im pli ed contr act cl ai m and awarded th e class $1,773,502 i n retroac tive pa y , plu s attorn ey’s fe e s . T h e C i t y a p p e a l s th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mm ar y jud gm en t o n th e p lain tiffs ’ im p lied co n tr ac t c laim an d the pl aint i ff s cr o ss - appe alon th ei r due pr o ce ss a nd br e a c h o f e xp r e s s c o nt r a c t c l a i ms; the pl a i nt i ff s do not c ha l l e ng e the a dv e r s e j ud g men to n the i r e qu a l p r ote cti on cl ai m . The dist rict co urt’ s o ri gi nal j uri sdic ti on d er ive s fro m th e fe d er al c laim s, see 28 U. S
. C. § 1 33 1, a nd th e acco m p an yin g s tate law clai m s fal l w ithin th e cou rt’s su p p lem en ta l j u ris d ict ion , see 28 U
. S. C
. § 1367(a). W e r eve rs e the di str i ct c ourt ’ s e ntryo fsum m ar y j ud gmen ti n f a v o r o fthe p l a i nt i ff s o n the i r i mpl i e d c o nt ra ct cl ai m and otherwis e a ffi rm . Because expres s co ntra cts

—N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 3 th e 1 9 9 9

- 2 0 0 3 C B As

— go verned th e pl ai nti ff s’ wages, th ei r i m pl i ed co nt r ac t cl ai m ca nno t su cc ee d. Bef ore the p lai nt iffs ac c ep ted the E R I P be ne fi ts, th ere w as u nc ertai n ty a s to w hethertheywould r ecei ve re tr oac ti ve w age s under the 2 003- 2007CB A s. The ERIP provi ded enha nc ed pen si o n be ne fi ts , but co ns pi cuo us l y m i ss i ng f ro m i t was any sugge sti on of enti tl em ent t o re tr oac ti ve w age i ncreases . N o doubt the pla i nti ff s ho ped fo r w age i ncr e a s e s , b ut the y ha d no r i g ht t o the m. A J un e 2 003 letter agreem en t betw een the C ity an d t h e un ions d idn ’t confer such a ri ght; i t m er el y extended th e 1 99 9- 2003 CB A s ( and exi sting wages) duri ng co ntra ct ne got iati ons and m ade ag re ed-upon w ag e incr eas es, i fany, r et r o active. The Ci tya nd the uni o n n eg o ti at ed an d d id n ’t a gr ee to giv e t h e p lain tiffs w ag e in c re as e s ; t h is w as enti re l y c onsi ste nt with the 2 003 let te r agr eem ent. A c c o r di ng l y, the p l a i nt i ff s ’ c l a i ms f o r b r e a c h o fi mpl i ed and express contr act f ai l as a m att ero fl aw . The pl ai nti ff s’ due pr o ce ss clai m s i m i l ar l y f ai l s be ca us e th er e i s no evi dence thatthe Citym ade m i sr epres entat i ons to i nd uce them to r eti re ea rl y.
I. Facts The pl aint i ff s, as Ci ty o f Chi ca g o empl o y ee s, w ere m embe r s o f t r a de un i o ns tha t j o i ne d t o g e the r a s a co al i t i o n d u r i n gc o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n gwi th th e C i t y . The pla i nti ff s w ere co ver ed und erthe 1999

- 2003 CB A s a s “prev ai l i ng wage r ate ” e m ploye es

— thos e e m plo yee s w or ki ng atj obs cl ass i fi ed as preva i l i ng wa ge jobs. “Pr evaili ng w ag e r at e” i s a te r m tha t th e Ci tya nd the uni o ns u se to refe r to th e h ou rly r a te p aid to cr aft s o r j ob cla ss i-4 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 fi cati ons doi ng si m i l arkind s o fwork i n Cook County pu rs uant to the f or m ula used bythe U ni ted S tat es Departm ent o fLabor( DO L) in ad m i ni ste ring the Davi sB ac on A c t. C er ta in ot h er em p loy ee s re c e ive d a n eg ot iate d w age r ate
. B e fore the p lai nt iffs’ 1999 -2003 C B A s w ere set to exp ire on J une 30, 20 03, the coa l i ti on’ s r epres entat i ve provi ded no ti ce tha t the uni o ns woul d no t r en ew the e xi st i ng ag r ee m en t. The un io ns a nd the Ci tyb eg anne g o ti at i ng succes sorag re em ents f or20 03-20 07. Because the par ti es w er e unabl e t o re ach a n agre em ent b y the 19 99- 2003 CBA e xpi r at i o n da te , the y a g r ee d t o ex ten d the c ur r en t CBA s whi l e ne g o ti at i o ns c o nt i nue d. The Ci ty and the u n i ons enter ed i nto the fol l owing l ett erag re em ent o n J une 26, 20 03: Thi s wi l l c o nfi r m o urc o nv er sa ti o ns r eg ar di ng the e xtensi on o fthe Co al i ti on Un i ons’ co ntra cts w hi ch ar e du e t o expir e a t m i dn i ght J une 30, 20 03. I t i s unde r st o o d an d th e par ti es ag r ee to ex tend the t e r ms o fa l l c ur r e ntag r e e men t s thr o ugh mi dni ght J uly30 , 20 03. There after, th e agr eem ents shal l co nti nue on a da y-t o-day basi s s ubj ect to ter mi na t i o n b y e i the r p a r t y u po n t e n ( 1 0 ) days w ri tte n noti ce. Dur i ng the e xt e ns i o n pe r i o d the t e r ms o fsuch agr eem ents shal l co nti nue w i thout change. I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o fth e e x t e n s i o n o fth e c u r r en t agr eem ents, the Cityag re es that w age i ncre ase s, i f an y, ag re ed to bythe parti es shal l be re tr oac tiv e t o Ju ly 1 , 200 3, u n les s t h e p ar tie s m u tu ally ag re e t o a n ot h er d at e.N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 5 ( A 28- 29) ( em phasi s a dd ed). T h e C i ty hand w ro te “i fany” i n t o th e a gr ee m en t; th e C ity an d u n ion s s ign ed th is m odi fi ed agr eem ent. The City a nd the unio ns had begu n dis cussi ons f or new CB A s in th e sp ringo f20 03. The uni ons w anted wag e i nc r ea se s, b utb ec au se the Ci tywas f ac i nga s er ious budget defi ci t, it w asn’ t pr epare d to com m i t t o w age i nc r ea se s wi th o utc er ta i n wo r kr ul e co ncessi o ns . The Cityi ni ti al l y o ffer ed two propos al s that in c luded r ai ses f o r “ pr e v a i l i ng wa g e r a t e e mpl o y e e s ” : ( 1 ) de fe r r ai ses f o r s i x months unt i l J an ua r y 2 00 4 atwhi chpo i ntthe p re va ilin g w ag e r a t e w ou ld be inc re as ed on a ye ar ly ba si s; a nd ( 2) pr o vi de r at e in creas es a s o fJ ul y 2 00 3 o n a one- ti m e, o ne- yea r basi s (b ut no ra i se guar antee after J uly1, 20 04)
. Both pro posal s incl u d ed a n um bero f wor kr ul e ch an g es de si g ne d t o o ff set the c o sto fthe raises, su ch as u n p a id furlou gh da ys, ch an ges in w ork ho ur s, a nd r edu cti ons i n r epo r tinga nd c al l

- i n pa y . The unio ns r ej ecte d these propos al s. I n l a t e 2 0 0 3 , w h i l e n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r th e 2 0 0 3

- 2 0 0 7 C B As w er e s ti l l o ngoi ng, t he Ci ty offer ed em plo yee s a n i nc en ti ve pa ck ag e to r etire ear l y unde r the ERI P. The i nc e nt i v e s i nc l ud e d the a b i l i t y t o pu r c ha s e up to f i ve yea rs o fcr edite d serv i ces f oro ne- hal fthe usual co st to i ncre ase the em plo yee ’ s a nnuity( each yearo fse rv i ce pu rchas ed w oul d al l ow the re ti re es’ ag e t o be dee m ed one yea r ol der tha n it a ctual l y was) and the abi l i ty to re cei ve an annuity that w as not disc ounted for reti re m ent b ef or e a ge si xty. A fterat tendi ng sem i nars to l e a r n a b o utthe ER I P, e a c h na med p l a i nt i f ft o o ka d-6 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 vantag e o fthe prog ra m and re ti re d in either Febr uaryo r M ar ch 200 4. At the ti m e o fthe pl aint i ff s’ r et i r ement s, ne g o ti at i o ns between thei r unio ns and the Citywe re s til l o ngoi ng. Du ring neg oti ati ons, the unio ns and the Citydi scuss ed w h et h er an y p ay ra i se s w ou ld be giv en , w h o w ou ld re cei ve them , and w hethertheywould be ap p lied r etr oacti vel y. A m ong othe r propos al s, the Ci ty propos ed r et r o ac ti ve pa y i nc r ea se s effec ti ve v ar i o us da te s. The unio ns and the City speci fi cal l y disc usse d w hether f or m erem plo yee s, i ncl ud i ng pl ai nti ffr eti re es, sho uld be gi ven r etr oac ti ve pay r ai ses . The uni ons pu shed f or empl o y ee s who r et i r ed afte r J une 2 00 3 to g etthe i ncre ase . I n J uly20 05, the Cityo ffer ed to gi ve re tr oac ti ve ra i ses to tho se retir ees i n exchange f oract i ve em plo yee s ta k i ngt wo un pai d fur l o ug h da y s, b utthe uni o ns rej ec te d th is p ro p os al. T h e p ar tie s fin ally rea c h ed a te n ta tiv e a gr ee m en t in J uly20 05. I n the 2003

- 2007CB A s, the unio ns ag re ed to var i ous workr ule co ncessi on s and the Ci ty agr eed to the ho url y “ preva i l i ng wage ra te ” ofpay, as es tabl i shed by the DOL f orsi m i l arj ob cl ass i fi cation s in Cook County, effecti ve J uly1, 20 03, f orem plo yee s w ho had re cei ved thatr ate und erpri orag re em ents. The r ai se, howev er, was r et r o ac ti ve o nl y f o r empl o y ee s who w ere ei thero n the payro l l, were on l ayo ffwith r ecal l r i ghts, orwere sea sonalem plo yee s e l i gibl e forr ehi re as o f J uly18 , 20 05. S hor tl y there after, the p ar ties al so agr eed to a wag e i nc r ea se f o r no n- pr ev ai l i ngr at e empl o y ee s. The CityCounci l r ati fi ed the succes sorCB A s in Octobe r 2005
.N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 7 T h e C ity ’s c h ief lab or n eg ot iat or , M ich ae l D u ffee , tes tifi ed tha t wi the ve r y CBA “[ t] he Ci tydo es s o m ethi ng differ ent .
. . a s to w ho g ets

— i fther e i s r etr oac ti vi ty, w ho get s it an d h o w m u ch
. ” Th e nam ed plaintiff s att est ed th at wh en the y r eti re d, they und er sto od that thei r ra te ofpay w as stil l being neg oti ate d. They be

l i ev ed th eywoul d ev en tu al l y r ec ei ve the “ pr ev ai l i ng w age r ate ” f orthe w or k th ey p erf or m ed afterJ une 30, 20 03 , b ec au se they had r ec ei ve d r et r o ac ti ve wag e i nc re as es u n d er p rior co n tr ac ts an d h av e h ist or ica lly re c eiv ed th e s am e “ p r ev ailin g w ag e ra te ” a s p er so n s in thei r unio ns wh o w or ked i n i denti caljob cl ass i fi cati ons. A l so, em ploye es wh o re ti re d du ring co ntra ct ne got i ati ons f orthe 1999

- 2003 CB A s r ecei ved r etr oac ti ve pay i ncre ase s f orwork they perf or m ed afterJ uly19 99.

I I . Di s c us s i o n Bef o r e d i v i n g i n t o th e m er i ts , we f i r sta ddr es s th e p rop riety ofplaintiff s’ cross-ap p eal. I n t h e ir initial brief, the pl ai nti ff s di dn ’ t ind ica te they w er e s eek i ng to expand o r m od ify the j ud gm ent in thei r f avo r. They requ ested that “the C ou rt affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s dec i si o n in thi s m at te r i n i ts ent i r ety . Al te r na ti ve l y, i f, a nd onl y i f, the Court re ver se s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on that Pla in ti ff s a re enti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n [ th ei r i m pl i ed co nt ra ctc l ai m ] , Pl aint i ff s r eque sttha t th e C o u r tr e v e r s e th e di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n g r a n t i n gs u mm ar y j ud gm ent t o the Ci ty, and denyi ng sum m ar y j ud gm en t to Pl aint i ff s, o n [ th ei r b r ea cho fc o nt ra cta nd due proce ss cl ai m s] , and that th e C ou rt r em and thi s m att er for fu rt h er p ro c ee d in gs .”8 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 I t i s i m properto fi l e a cr oss - appeal to m er el y a sse rtan alt er n at ive gro u n d of affir m an c e. Se eSt oneCont ai ne rCorp. v. Har t f or d S t e am Boi l e rIns pe ct i on & Ins . Co. , 16 5 F .3d 11 57 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. “A cro ss- appeal is n eces sar y a nd pro per onl y when the appel l ee w ants the a p p ellat e co urt to al terthe j ud gm ent (th e bo tto m l i ne, notthe gr ounds or re aso ni ng) o fthe d istr i ct c ourt
. ” Id. ; s e eal s o Jone s M ot or Co. v. Hol t ka mp, L i e s e, Be c ke mei e r & Ch i l dre ss , P. C. , 19 7 F.3 d 1190, 11 91 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( “The cr oss - appeal ( w hi ch is c on tin ge n t b ec au se th e ru lin g is o f n o c on se q u en c e if w e affirm the j ud gm en t for th e d efend an ts) i s im p rop er, bec au se it does n ot seek an alt e r a t ion of th e j ud gm en t.”)
. W h en pl ai nti ff s a re ar gui ng al ternati ve gr ounds f or affi r m an ce the y c an d o s o i n the i r r es po ns e br i efwi th o ut c ro ss a p p ea lin g. Se eAm
. La nd H ol di ngs of Ind. , LL C v. Jobe, 604 F.3d 45 1, 45 3 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); see a l s o S ing leta ry v. C ont’l Ill
. Nat’l B a n k& Trus t C o. of Chi. , 9 F. 3d 1236 , 1240 ( 7th Cir. 1993). Th e p l a i nt i ff s co nc e de the y a r e n o ts e e k i nga nya dd itio n al re lief on th eir br ea c h of co n tr ac t c l aim , so th eir c ro ss -ap p ea l on th at co u n t is im p ro p er . In th eir rep ly br i efo n c r o ss - appe ala nd a t o r ala r g um en t, th ey ar g ue th at th ey a r e s e ek in g a m od ified j u d gm en t a s t o t h eir du e pr oce ss cl ai m . I fsucce ssful on thei r du e pr oce ss ar gumen t, the p l a i nt i ff s c o nt e nd the y wo ul d b e e nt i t l ed to prej ud gm ent inter estand sta tutor y a tto rney ’ s fees un d er 42 U .S .C
. § 1988 (as opp osed to the attorn ey’s fees awa rd ed on thei r sta te l aw cl ai m under the co m m on fund do ct r i ne )
. The Ci tya l so c o nc ede s th ati fthe pl ainti ff s s ucceed on du e pr oce ss gr ounds, the case m us t be re m anded so the d i str i ct c ourtcan deter m i ne an appro-N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 9 pri ate m eas ure ofdam age s. A ccor dingl y, the du e pr ocess cl ai m w oul d hav e provi ded a proper basi s to cr oss ap p eal, bu t the plain t if fs never ind icated they w ere se ek i nga ny ty pe o fmodi fi ed reli efo r a l te r at i o n in the j udg m en t unt i l the i r r eply b r i ef
. I ss ue s r ai se d f or the firs t t im e in a re p ly a re w aiv ed
. SeeIn re Sok olik, 63 5 F
. 3d 26 1, 2 68 ( 7th Ci r. 2 011)
. The pl aint i ff s as kf o r the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o pini on t o be a ffi rm ed i n its enti re ty. T he y seek an alternative grou nd f or reli ef, bu t the y d idn ’t f ol l ow that up w i th a re quest fora m odi fi ed j ud gm ent. Because they di dn ’ t s eekaddit i onalr elie f, thei r cro ssap pea l i s i m pr o pera nd mustb e st r i ck en . Ev enc o nsi der i ngthe pl aint i ff s’ b r ea cho fc o nt r ac t an d due p ro c es s c laim s a s alt er n at ive gro u n d s fo r affir m an c e, s ee Jone s M ot orCo. , 19 7 F
. 3d at 119 1-9 2 ( dism i ssi ng i m proper cr o ss - appe alb utc o ns i der i ng the a l te r na ti ve g r o und for a f firm an c e), w e fin d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly dism i sse d these cl ai m s. N ow on t o t h e m erits. W e review a district cou rt’s gr an t o f su m m ar y jud gm en t d e n ov o, co n st ru in g a ll f acts and re aso nabl e infere nces i n the l i ght m ost fav or ab le t o t h e n on -m ov in g p ar ty
. Spi vey v . Adapt i ve M ktg. LLC, 622 F.3d 816 , 822 (7th C ir. 2010). Sum m ary j ud gm en t is ap p rop riate i f “th e m ovan t show s tha t the re i s no g e n u i n e d i s p u t e a s t o a n y ma t e r i a l f a c ta n d the mov a nti s e nt i t l e d t o j ud g men ta s a ma t t e r o fl a w. ” F e d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a)
. Cr o ss - m o ti o ns f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t do no t wa i v e th e r i g h t t o a t r i a l ; r a th e r, we t r e a tt he m o ti o ns s epa r at ely i n de te r m i ningwhethe r j udg m en t sh ou ld be en te re d in a c c or d an c e w ith R u le 5 6. M c K inn ey v. C adlewa y P rops. , Inc. , 548 F.3d 496 , 504 n.4 (7th C ir.10 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 2 0 0 8 )
. F i n d i n gn o g e n u i ne i ss u e s o fma t e r i a l f a c t, we c o n c l u d e th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d i n g r a n t i ng s u mm ar y j udg m en t to the pl aint i ff s o n the i r i m pl i ed co ntr ac t t h eo ry an d h old th at su m m ar y jud gm en t s h ou ld have been enter ed in f avo r ofthe City
. W e o ther w i se affi r m the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s g r ant o fs um m ar y j udg m en t i n f avo r ofthe City on the pla i nti ff s’ br each o fexpre ss contr act and du e pr oce ss cl ai m s.

A. S t a t e L a w C l a i ms The pla i nti ff s’ pri m ar y a rgum ent o n app ea l i s that they continu e d t o wo r kf o r the Ci t y a ft e r the 1 9 9 9

- 2 003 CBA s ex pi r ed wi ththe mutual unde r st an di nga nd e xpectat i on that th e C ity w oul d l ate r re ach a fi nal ag re em ent r ega rdi ng their w age r ate
. They c l ai m an i m pli ed contr act f or m ed beca use “ the Ci ty had ente red i nto an agr eem ent w i th Pl ai nti ff s und er w hi ch the C ity accepted Pl ainti ff s’ work but l eft t h e finalr ate o fpay unstate d pendi nga g r e e men ta ta l a t e r da t e . ” Be c a us e n o fi na l agreem en t w as ever reach ed for th eir w ages, t h e y a s sert th a tthe c o ur tmus ti mpl y a c o nt r a c tt e r m f o r a r easo nabl e r at e o fpa y . The pl aint i ff s cl aim tha t th e f ol l owing f acts ga ve ri se to an i m pli ed contr act f orr ai se i n c r e a s e s : e mpl o y e e s wh o c o n t i n u e d wo r k i n g f o r t he Cityi n the sam e j ob cl ass i fi cati ons re cei ved r etr oac ti ve wag e i nc r ea se s f o r the t i m e per i o d a t i ss ue ; the pla i nti ff s’ w ag es were gener al l y t i ed to “pre vai l i ng wage rates” ; the C ity offered w age increa ses sh ortly before and afterthe 1999

- 2003 CB A s were setto exp ire ; t h e Ci ty ag r ee d t o make a ny wag e i nc r ea se s r et r o ac ti ve i n theN os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 11

The pl ai nt i ff s al s o a s s ert t hatthe Ci t y wai ved i t s ar gum en t 1 tha t “the im p lied con tract is no t lega l ly b ind ing on the C ity p u rs u a n t to 6 5 IL C S 5/8 -1 -7 (a )” (p ri o r a p p ro p ri a tio n s sta tu te ). Because we find thatthe re was no i m plie d contract, w e need not add res s the prior approp ri ati ons s tatute. J une 2 6, 2 00 3 l et te r a g r ee m ent; an d the pl aint i ff s, a nd past re ti re es w ho had r eti re d duri ng contr act n eg oti ati o ns , ha d hi st o r i ca ll y r ec ei ve d r et r o ac ti ve pa y i ncr ea se s. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und the pl aint i ff s’ a r g um ent per su asiv e, co ncl ud i ng tha t the Ci ty bre ached an i m pli ed contr act und er Ill i noi s l aw and re aso ni ng tha t the Ci ty’ s a c c ep tance ofpl ai nti ff s’ se rv i ces enti tl ed them to re aso nabl e pay f ro m J uly20 03 thro ugh th e date o f thei r re ti re m ent. Reas onabl e pay , t he co urt f ound, w as the r ate the Citywas w i l l i ng to pay re tr oac ti vel y t o o th e r e mpl o y ee s. F o r th e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, we concl ud e that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ng o fan i m plie d con tract w as in error. T he pl ai nti ff s ini ti al l y c onte nd thatthe Citywaive d i ts ar gum ents that ( 1) “[ p]l ai nti ff s’ em plo ym ent c oul d not be alte re d by a n i m pli ed contr act because i t was co ver ed by an expre ss contr act, ” a nd ( 2) “ th er e was no i m pli ed c on tr ac t g ivin g p l a i n tiffs ret ro ac tiv e w ag e in c re as es ,” be ca us e th e Ci tydi d nots uffi ci en tly de ve l o p the se a r g um ents bef or e the d istri ct c ourtwith pr operci tat i ons to re l evantl ega l autho rit y. W e di sag re e. The Ci ty ra i sed 1 both i n i ts m em or andu m i n supp or t o fsu m m ar y j ud gm en t, s ee D oc . 66, a n d rais ed sim ilar arg u m en ts in re sponse to the pl ai nti ff s’ m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm en t, s e e D oc . 97. T h e b u rd en on th e m ov in g p ar ty is12 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 disc harg ed by “showing”

— thati s, po i nt i ngo utt o the d istri ct cou rt

— that ther e i s a n abse nce o fev i dence to su p p or t th e no n m ov in g pa rt y’s c a se . Se eCr awford v
. C ountrywide Hom e Loa ns, Inc. , ___ F .3d ___, N o. 10

- 3135 , 20 11 W L 2 9 0 6 1 5 7, a t* 5 ( 7 th C i r . J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 ) ( c i t i ng C el otex Corp. v . Ca tret t, 4 77U. S
. 3 17, 3 23 ( 19 86 ) )
. Onc e th e Citychal l enged the f actualsupport and le galso und ness ofpl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m , the pla in tiff s a cquir ed the burden of d em on st ra tin g t h at ge n u in e is su es rem ain ed for t ria l. S e eBo u meh div . Pl as t agHol dings, L L C, 48 9 F
. 3d 781, 78 7 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ T o s u r v i v e s u mma r y j u d g me n t, [ th e pl a i nt i ff s ] mus tma k e a s uffi c i e nts ho wi ngo fe vi dence f o r e ac h e l emento f[ their] c ase tha t [ th ey ] b ea r [ ] the bur deno fpr o vinga t tr i al
. ”)
. The y di dn’ t m ee t th atb ur den
. Pursuant t o I l l i noi s l aw ( the par ti es agr ee that the s tat e l aw cl ai m s a re co ntro l l ed by I l l i noi s l aw ) , an i m pli ed co ntract is cre at ed byl aw a s a r es ul t o fthe pa r ti es ’ c o nd u c t. Z adrozn y v. C ity C olls
. of Chi. , 581 N .E .2d 44 , 47 (Ill. Ap p . C t
. 1 9 9 1 )
. I tc a n e i th er be i m pl i e d i n f a c to r i n l a w. Id. T he p l a i nti ff s a pp e a r t o r e s tthe i r c l a i m o n a n i mpl i e di n- f ac t co nt r ac t, b utf o r c o m pl et en es s, we add ress b o th
. “A co ntra ct i m pli ed in fa ct i s o ne i n w hi ch a contr actual du ty i s i m p os ed by a pro m i sso ryexpre ssi on wh i ch m ay be i nfer r ed f r o m the f ac ts a nd c i r cum sta nc es a nd the ex pr e s s i o ns [ o n] the pa r t o f the pr o mi s o r whi c h s ho w an i ntenti on t o be b ound.” E stat e of Jesm er v. R o hlev , 60 9 N
. E. 2d 81 6, 8 20 ( I l l
. App. Ct
. 1 99 3)
. S ucha c o nt r ac t “c o nsists of obligati ons ari sing from a n agree m en t w he re an ag re em en t h as not been express ed i n w or ds. ” In re M a rriag e of B enn ett, 587 N
. E
. 2d 5 77, 580 (Il l. A p p . Ct
. 1992). I t i s “ a t rue contr act, co ntai ni ng al l nece ssa ryel em entsN os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 13 ofa bi nd i ng ag re em ent; i t differ s fr om o therco ntra cts onl y i n tha t i t ha s no t b e e n c o mm i t t e d t o wr i t i ng o r sta ted o ra l l y in expres s t erm s, b u t rather i s infe rr ed fro m the c onduct ofthe parti es i n the m i l i eu i n w hi ch they deal t. ” A .E .I. M usic N etw o rk, Inc
. v. B us. C o m pu ters, Inc ., 29 0 F.3 d 9 5 2 , 9 56 (7t h C ir. 20 02 ) (qu ot at ion s o m itt ed ) (Ill in ois law ); A l’s Serv . Ctr. v
. B P P r o ds. N . Am ., Inc ., 599 F. 3d 720, 726 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Th at i s the significanc e of ‘i n fact’: the c i rcum sta nces al l ow an i nfe re nce that the par ti es had a d eal ( a ‘m eetin g o f th e m ind s’) even thou gh there w as no statem en t to that effect.”) ( I ll inois l aw ). “[ A ] n i m pli ed contra ct c annot coe xi st w i th an express contr act on the sa m e su b j ec t. ” M ane s s v. Sa nt a F e P a rk E nters. , Inc. , 70 0 N
. E.2 d 194, 20 1 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 98) ( hol ding that ex press co ntra ct ne gat ed the exi ste nce ofany i m pli ed-in-f act contr act and rej ecting co ntenti on th ata l l eg ed i m pl i ed- i n- f ac t co nt r ac t su p pl ement ed ex press wri tte n contr acts )
. “[ P]r om i ses sho uld notbe f o und b y pr o ce ss o fi m pl i ca ti o n i fthe y woul d b e i nc o nsi ste nt with express pro vi si ons that ther e i s no r eas on t o seta side o r to hol d i nopera ti ve. ” B a rry M o gu l & A ssoc s., Inc . v. Te r r e s t r i s D e v. Co. , 64 3 N
. E.2 d 245, 25 3 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 1994 ) ( quoti ng C o rbin on C o ntra cts § 564 at 297 ( 1960 ))
. T h e e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t, h o we v e r, mu s t g o v e r n th e s a me subj ect m att eras th at a t i ssue. Id. ; se e also Gad sb y v. Health Ins. A dm in., Inc., 522 N
. E
. 2d 865, 871 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 1988). The pla i nti ff s ci te Ekl v. Kne ch t, 5 8 5 N. E. 2 d 1 5 6 ( I l l
. App
. Ct . 1 991) i n supp or t o fthei r cl ai m thatthe cour t m ust i m pose an i m pli ed contr act ter m bec ause ther e was no a gr eem ent that g ove rned thei r ra te of payafter14 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 J ul y 2 00 3. I n Ekl , the pla in tiffs cal l ed a pl um berto perf or m work and w er e invoi ced f orthatwork at w hat pl ai nti ff s believ ed was a r i dicul ous a m ount. 58 5 N. E. 2 d a t 1 6 0
. Th e c o ur t f o un d tha t the r e wa s a n i mpl i e di n- f a c t c o n t r a c t t o p a y f o r th e p l u mb e r ’ s s e r v i c e s , b ut regard less of w ha t the plaintiff s ant ici p ated pa ying, th ere w as no e vi dence ofan e xpress ori m p lied pro m i se to pay defe nd ants’ re gul ar charg es at the ti m e th e c ontr act w as form ed
. Id. at 162. The co urt ther ef or e hel d that the i m pli ed-in-f act contr act obl i ged the pl ai nti ff s t o pay a reaso na ble p r i c e f o r th e s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d , no t th e am ou n t c h ar ge d by th e p lu m b er . Id. Unl i k e th e o ral con tr ac t i n E k l, w hich did not sp ecify p ay m en t t e r m s, th e is su e o f th e p lain tiffs ’ p ay in t h is ca se was the s ubj ect o fa n e xpr es s ag r ee m en t. Dur i ng nego ti ati ons, the pla i nti ff s’ p ay w as gov er ned by the 19 99- 2003 C BA s that were al l owed to co nti nue i n effect th r o ug h the da te o fthe i r r et i r ement
. That a g r ee m en t w as th en rep laced w ith th e 2003-200 7 C B A s, w hich un fortunatel y forthe pla i nti ff s, di dn ’ t g i ve them r ais es . Because ther e was an express ag re em ent that a dd re sse d rat e ofpay f orr eti re es, ther e ca n be no i m pli ed contr act. F o r s i m i l arr ea so ns the pl aint i ff s’ r el i an ce o n M arti n v. C a m pa na ro , 1 5 6 F
. 2 d 1 2 7( 2 d Cir
. 1 9 4 6 ) i s mi s pl a c e d. Fi rs t, i t’ s no t pr ecedenti alautho ri ty; i t was notdeci ded u n d er I l l i noi s l aw . Se cond, i t’ s re adil y dist i ngui shabl e. In M arti n , wh en the em plo yee s’ co l l ec tiv e ba rg ai ni ng ag re em ent expir ed, they continued to w or k f or the ra te of p ay se t f o r thi n the e xpi r ed CBA w hile the empl o y era nd unio n nego ti ate d new wage t er m s. 15 6 F
. 2d at 128. W henN os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 15 thos e neg oti ati ons re ached a s ta lem ate , the dispute w as re fer re d to th e N at ion al W ar L ab or B oa rd , b u t s h or tly th er ea fte r, th e e m p loy er w as ad j u d ica te d ba n kr u p t. Id. The Board i ssued a “dir ecti ve ord er ” fo r re tr oac ti ve pay in c re as es to th e e m p loy ee s. O n re vie w , th e c ou rtin M arti n h e ld t h a t the Boa rd did n’t creat e ri gh ts th at w ere e nfo r c e a b l e b y the c l a i man t s , b utn e v e r the l e s s fo un d a c on tr ac t im p lied -in -fac t fo r th e r e a so n ab le v alu e o f th eir se rv ice s a fte r th e e x p ira tio n of th e C B A
. Id. at12 9. T he c o ur t i n M ar t i n s t a t e d th a t“ [ w] h e n a n a g r ee m en t ex pi r es b y i ts t er m s, i f, wi th o utmor e, th e p ar ti es c o nti nue t o pe r f o r m, . . . a n i mpl i c a t i o n a r i s e s tha t the y have m utua l l y a ss en te d t o a ne w co nt r ac t con ta i ni ngthe sam e pr ovi si ons as the o l d.” Id. B u t based on th e pa rti cul arf acts o fthe case

— the e m plo yer ’ s a gr eem ent t o ne g o ti at e ne w w ag e te r m s, the r es ul tingunsu cces sful ne g o ti at i o ns , the hear i ng s be f o r e th e Bo ar d, a nd the w ar ti m e no - str i ke ple dge g i ven byo rg ani zed l abor

— th e cour t foun d thatno re aso nabl e per son coul d bel i eve that the e mpl o y e e s a g r e e d t o wo r k, i n the i nt e r v a l, at th eir old rat es . Id. Th e cou rt held : “W e thin k that here ther e was a contr act ‘ i m pli ed i n f act’ to p ay t h e r easonab l e val ue of the ser vi ces un less a new contr act defini ti zi ng the wage- ra tes sho uld be nego ti ate d .
. . . ” Id. at 130 (em p ha sis add ed ). Altho ug h the pl ai nt if fs pl ac e he av y r el i an ce o n M arti n , i t g ets them nowh er e. H er e, ther e was “a new contr act defini ti zi ng [ thei r] wage- ra tes ” a nd thatco ntra ct f ail ed to provi de the m w ith pay i ncre ase s. Despi te these f acts, th e pl aint i ff s po i ntt o the Ci ty ’ s past per f o r m an ce a nd16 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921

ar gue that i t was unre ason ab le to bel i eve thatthey ag re ed to w or k u n d er th e o ld rat es . Th ey p re se n t e vidence thattheyr ecei ved r etr oac ti ve w age s incre ase s unde r pr i o r c o nt r ac ts , the y ha d hi st o r i ca l l y r ec ei ve d the sam e “ pr ev ai l i ngwag e r at e” a s per so ns i n the i r uni o ns w ho work ed i n i denti cal j ob cl ass i fi cati ons, and und er th e 1999- 2003 CB A s, r eti re d em plo yee s r ecei ved r etr oactive p ay increas es. T hi s p ast p erform an ce, how ever, doesn’ t cr eat e an im pli ed contr act because the ter m s o f the CBA s a re up f or r e-nego ti ati on a t the end ofea ch contr act ter m , pro vi ding the Ci ty and the u n ions w i th the o pp or tu n ity to nego ti ate new ter m s that v ar y fro m past pr acti ces and agr eem ents. The C i ty’ s a dd i ti on o f th e wor ds “i f an y ” i n th e 20 03 l et te r ag r ee m en t i l lust r at es thi s po i nt
. The pl aint i ff s par ti ci pat ed i n the ERI P wi th the kno wl e dg e a nd u nd e r s t a nd i ngtha tr e tr oa c t i v e wa g e i nc r e a s e s we r e s t i l l b e i ngn e g oti at e d. They m ay have hoped fo r re tr oac tiv e ra i ses , but such a uni l ate ra l expecta ti on i s insuffi ci ent t o cre ate an im p lied co n tr ac t. Se eZadrozny, 581 N
. E.2 d a t 48 ( “I n or der t o r e c o v e r o n a n i mp l i e d c o n t r a c t, th e f a c t s a n d c i r c u mstan ces m us t show that, at the t im e t h e services w ere r en der ed, o ne pa r tye xpe ct ed to r ec ei ve pa y m en t an d the o therparty intended t o m ake paym ent. ”)
. The f acts i n thi s ca se don’ t l ea d to the co nc l us i o n re ac he d i n M arti n . W e pause here to co nsi der the pl ai nti ff s’ expre ss contr act claim becau se it dovet ail s into t h e ir argu m en t tha t the reN os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 17

The C ity rai se s an exhaust ion def ense to the plaint iff s’ breach 2 ofc on t r a c tc l a i m . T he C i t y a s s e r t s tha tthi s c l a i m s ho ul d b e dism is se d b ecaus e the plai nti ff s f ail ed to exhaust the grie vance p ro ce d u re s se t fo rt h in th e 1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 3 C B A s . T h e p la in tiffs resp on d tha t as retirees th ey w eren ’ t requ i r e d to grie v e the ir c om pl ai nt, c i t i ng R os se t t o v. P abs tBre w i ng C o. , 128 F. 3d 538, 540 (7 th C ir. 1997) ( holding that ret ir ees ’ cl aim s “f or benefit s . . . belong to the re ti rees i nd ividually, and the re ti rees m ay d eal d ir ec tly w ith [th e e m p lo y er ] in p u rs u in g su ch cla im s” ). S ee a l s o Car no ckv. Ci ty o

f De ca t ur, 6 2 5 N. E. 2 d 1 1 6 5 , 116 9 ( I l l
. App
. Ct
. 1 9 9 3 ) ( h o l d i n g th a tb e c a u s e th e p l a i n t i ffw a s r e t i r e d, he wa s n’ tr e q ui r e d t o e x ha us tg r i e va nc e pr oc e dur e s bef ore b ri ngi ng s ui tf or unus ed a c c um ul at ed s i c k l ea ve)
. Bec ause w e can sw ift l y d i sp ose o f the p lain tiffs’ b rea ch of exp ress con tract cla im on th e m e r i t s, w e d o n ot n eed to ad d ress this is sue. was a mutua l unde r st an di ng f o r r et r o ac ti ve wag es . The 2 pla i nti ffs contend that the 2 003 l ett erag re em ent r equi re d the Ci ty, i fi t a gr eed to gi ve ra i ses , to applyt h em r etr oac ti vel y t o all em p loy ee s a s o f Ju l y 2 00 3 a n d th at by on ly gi vi ng ac ti ve orl ai d -offem plo yee s r etr oac ti ve w age i ncre ase s, th e Ci ty vi ol ate d the ag re em ent. The di str i ct cour t pr oper l y r ej ecte d thi s a rgum ent. The l ett erst ate s in re l evantpart : “I n c on si derat i on o f the e xt e ns i o n o fthe c ur r e nta g r e e men t s , the Ci t y a g r e es th atwag e i nc r ea se s, i fa ny, a g r ee d t o b y the pa r ti es [ th e unio n s an d the Ci ty] shal l be re tr oac ti ve to J uly1, 20 03, unl es s th e par ties m utua l l y a g r ee t o a no th erda te
. ” The l et te r i s una m bi g uo us ; i t m er ely c o nt empl at ed th atthe Cityand the unio ns would co nti nue to n ego ti ate wage18 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 i ncre ase s a nd m ade agre e d- up on wage i ncre ase s, i fany, r et r o ac ti ve t o J ul y 2 00 3 ( unl es s th eya g r ee d o th er wi se)
. A fterexte nsi ve ne goti ati ons, the parti es didn’tag re e t o giv e p lain tiff re tir ee s re tr oa c t i ve w ag e in c re as es ; th is dea l wa s e nt i r e l y c o ns i s t e ntwi th the t e r ms o fthe 20 03 l e t t e r a g r e e me n t, wh i c h i n e s s e n c e , wa s a n a g r ee m en t to nego ti ate
. “I l l i noi s perm i ts parti es to agr ee to nego ti ate , an d t o wor kt o war d s o m e g o al, wi th o ut c o m m i tt i ng th emse l ve s to i ts a ch i ev ement

— or to p ay d am ag es ifit i s n ot achie ved. ” M urray v. Abt A ss ocs. , Inc. , 18 F. 3d 13 76 , 137 8 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ). Fu rth er , th e le t t e r is to o in d efinite to cre ate a contr act f orr etr oac ti ve ra i ses notse t f o rth in t h e m or e e lab or at e 2 00 3-2 00 7 C B A s. Id. ( “Respect f or the parti es’ autono m y i n shapi ng th eir ar ra ngem ents, and fo r the a l l oca ti on o fr i sks theyse l ecte d, m ea n [s] that a cour t ought not fi nd i n a l ett er . . . the ve ry p ro m i se th e m ore elaborate Prop osed Term Sheet w ithh eld.”). The pla i nti ff s’ ar gum ent s i m i lar ly f al ter s under an im p lied -in -law th eo ry , som et im es refe rre d to as a c laim i n quantum m er uit, quasi

- contr act, o r one f orunj ust en ric h m en t. Se e, e . g. , Y ug o s l av-Am
. Cul t ural Ct r . , Inc . v. Parkway Bank & Tr us tCo. , 763 N
. E.2 d 3 60, 367 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 2001 )
. U nl i ke contr acts i m pli ed i n f act, contr acts im p l i ed i n l aw ar i se notwiths tandi ng the part i es’ i ntenti ons, Z a drozn y, 581 N .E .2d at48 , an d are n o c on tr ac ts atall, B arry M ogul, 64 3 N
. E .2d at25 1. They a re i nstea d go ve rn ed by e q u ita b le p rin c ip les
. Kle kam p v . Ci ty of Bur b ank, 63 9 N
. E.2 d 241, 24 5 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 94)
. U nd er thi s theor y, “a pl ai nti ffasks the c ourtto r em edy the f act th at th e defen dan t was ‘ unj us tly e nr i ch ed’ b y i m po sing a co ntra ct. ” Village of Bloo m ingdale v. C D G En te r. Inc. , 7 52N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 19 N
. E
. 2d 1090, 1101 (I ll
. 2001). T o su cce ed , th e p laint iffs m u st sh ow (1) th at th ey p er for m ed a se rv ice to b e n e fit th e defen dan t; (2) the y pe r f o r m ed th e se r vi ce no n- g r atui to us l y ; ( 3) the de fen dan t ac ce pted the i r s er vi ce s; a nd (4) n o c on t r a c t ex ist ed to p re sc rib e p ay m en t fo r th is ser vi ce. B er nst e i n & Gr az i an , P. C. v . Graz i an & Volpe, P. C. , 93 1 N
. E. 2d 81 0, 8 25 ( I l l
. App
. C t. 20 10 )
. S i m i l art o the i m pl i ed- i n- f ac t th eo r y o fr ec o ve r y, the r e ca n b e no con tract im p li ed i n law w he re an ex p r ess con tract or a contr act i m pli ed in factexi sts betw een the par ti es an d co n c er n s t h e s am e s u bj ec t m at te r. Zadr ozny, 58 1 N
. E.2 d at 4 8. Bec au se the r e i s ane xpr es s co nt r ac t th atg o ve r ne d the pla i nti ff s’ wages, ther e ca n be no i m pli ed-in-l aw co ntra ct, norwould equi ty re quir e fi nd i ng an i m pli ed contr act he r e. I n K l e k a mp , th e co ur t r ej ec te d the pl aint i ff s’ a r g um ent ofan i m pli ed-in-l aw co ntra ct under si m i l arf acts
. The pla i nti ff s in that case were fi re fi ghter s/p aram edi cs hi r ed bythe c i ty
. 6 39 N. E. 2d at2 42
. The y w er e co m pen sat ed as fire fighte rs duri ng the i r fi rs t tw o yea rs o fpro bati o na r y s ta tu s, a nd the n pa i d a s par amedi cs pur su an t to t h e C ity ’s t h en -ex ist in g p olic y. Id. at24 3. The Ci ty l ate r changed it s pol i cy to pay fi re fi ghter s/param edi cs a h igh er sa lar y d u rin g t h e p ro b at i o n ar y p er iod
. Id. The pla i nti ffs sought r etr oac ti ve pay, ar gui ng tha t there was ani m pl i ed co nt r ac t f o r hi g he r c o m pen sa ti o n dur i ng thei r p ro b at i onar y per i od i n acco rdance w i th the new p olic y. Id
. The cour t di sag re ed, st ati ng tha t “ [ c] ase s wh i c h h a v e a d d r e s s e d e mp l o y e e s ’ cl a i ms b a s e d o n i mpl i e d c o nt r a c tthe o r i e s f o r e xt r a c o mpen s a t i o n b e y o nd a pre- deter m i ned sala ry are spars e a nd have hel d against20 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 the e m plo yee s. ” Id. at 245 ( citing case s). T h e p la in tiffs a c k n o wl e d g e d th a t th e y we r e h i r e d a s fi r e fi g h t e r s an d w o u ld serve a tw o-year prob ationary p eriod before th eir jo b c l as sific at ion , an d co rre sp on d in gly th eir s ala rie s, w ou ld ch an ge . Id. a t2 4 6
. U n d e r th e s e c i r c u msta nces, the cour t co uldn’ t fi nd thatdefendant w as u nj u st ly en ric h ed
. Id. Si m i l arto K l e k a mp , a t th e ti m e o fthe i r r eti rem ent, the pla i nti ff s knew theywere bei ng pai d at the 19 99- 2003 w age r ate s and thatther e was no cer tai nty o fr etr oac ti ve w age i ncre ase s. Bef or e a ccep ting ear l y r eti re m ent, the pl ai nti ff s co uld have di scusse d ret ro acti ve ra i ses w ith th eir u n ion , an d ce rt ain ly sh o u l d h av e if th eir d ec isi ons to acce pt ear l y r eti re m ent were co nti ngent up on i nc r ea se d pa y . Af te r a g r eei ng to pa r ti ci pat e i n the ERI P, i t was to o lat e. T h e plai nti ff s were stuck w i th the wage r at es i n the 1 99 9- 20 03 CB A s, un le ss the uni o n a nd the C ity ag r e e d to giv e t h em ret ro ac tiv e w ag e in c re as es in th e 200 3-2 00 7 C B A s, w h ich th ey d i d n ot
. See M ue l l e rv. C ityof H igh la nd P a rk, 51 9 N
. E.2 d 712, 71 6 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 88 ) (a co nt r ac t i m pl i ed i n l aw di d no t ex i stc o nc erni ng w ate r supp l i ed by a ci ty to a vi l l age du ring the peri od of ne g o ti at i o ns b etwee n the t wo muni ci pal i ti es ; “ [ i ] fthe parti es l ate r en ter[ ] i nto a va l i d contr act, ther e ca nnot be a reco ver y o n an i m pli ed contr act” )
. N othi ng r equi re d the Ci ty to gi ve al l em p loy ee s the sa m e pay i ncre ase ; the Ci t y a nd the un i o n we r e f r e e t o ne g o t i a t e as they did. See 5 I l l
. Co m p. S ta t. 3 15 / 7 ( r equi r i ngthe uni o n a nd the pub lic em p l oye r to bar gain i n go od f ai th but not com pel l i ng eitherparty t o agr ee to propos al s o r m ake con cess ions).N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 21

The pl ai nt i ff s al s o m ake pas s i ng r efer en c e on ap p ea l t o a 3 p ro ced u ral du e p ro cess claim asserted in Co u nt I ofth eir am ended com plaint
. T his argu m ent is com plet el y und eveloped a n d so is w a iv ed
. See A rg y rp ou l os v. C i ty of A l t on , 539 F. 3d 724, 738 ( 7 th C ir
. 2008) ( holding und eveloped clai m s are w a iv ed ). The Ci tyha s no t be enunj us tly e nr i ch ed bya cc ept i ng the pl ai nti ff s’ se rv i ces i n exchange f orexi stin g w age ra tes
. The pl ai nti ff s were pai d fo r th ei r ser vi ces, r ecei ved enhanced pensi on be nefi ts f orta king ea rl y r eti re m ent, an d we r e n o ts u bj e c tt o th e n e w c o s t
- s a v i n gc o n c e ss i o ns that apply to acti ve em plo yee s who re cei ved r etr oac ti ve ra i ses . They es sentia l l y a ske d the di str i ct c ourtto re w ri te the 2 003- 2007CB A s, w h i ch w er e the subj ect of tw o yea rs o fnego tiati on a nd co ncessi ons on bo th si des, to p ro vid e t h em w ith ad d itio n al c om p en sa ti o n . Th is re sul t would be i nequit abl e. Duri ng co ntra c t neg oti ati ons, r etr oac ti ve pay f orem plo yee s who re ti re d after J uly20 03 w as d iscussed and rej ecte d i n exchange f or m o r e f av o r ab l e wor kr ul es . The C i tyi s en ti tl ed to the be ne fi t o fi ts b ar g ain.

B . Du e P r o c e s s C l a i m I n C ou nt V of their am en d ed com p lai n t, the p lai nt iffs al l eg e th atthe C ity f ai l ed to g i ve the m i m po r ta nta nd m ate ri ali nfo rm ati on t o ind uce the m to ta ke ear l y r eti re m en ts
. T h e y a ss er t t h at th e C ity co n c ea led or w ith h eld

3 i ts i nt e nt i o n no tt o g i v e the m r e t r o a c t i v e p a y i nc r e a ses , ev en th ou gh t h e C ity kn ew th at p lain tiffs p ar tic ip at ed in22 N os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814& 10

- 2921 the ERI P w i th the expecta ti on o fr ecei vi ng s uch i ncre ase s ba se d o n th e Ci ty ’ s pas t pr ac ti ce s. W e as su m e w ithout d ec id in g t h a t t h e p lain tiffs h ad a p ro p er ty int er es t in th eir p ub li c em p loym en t; th e C it y doe sn ’t conte nd otherw i se. The pla i nti ff s ci te Sp reen v. B rey, 961 F. 2d 109 ( 7th Cir. 1992 ) to support thei r du e pr oc es s cl ai m . I n that case , w e hel d that the pl ai nti ffwould be enti tl ed to ce rt ain proce du ra l du e p ro cess r i ghts i fthe ci ty m ade m ate ri al m isr ep re se n ta tio n s t o in d u c e h er t o re sig n . Id. at11 2. Spre e n doesn’ t hel p th e pla i nti ff s be cause unli ke i n that case , the pla i nti ffs hav en’ t br ought f or th anyev i dence that the Ci ty m ad e m i sr epres entat i ons to i nd uce the m to r et i r e ea r l y . The Ci tyhe l d m ee ting s to e xpl ain the E R I P, w hi chthe pl aint i ff s at te nde d. The pl aint i ff s vo l unta ril y t oo k par t in the ER I P w i th fullkno w l edge that nego ti ati ons f orthe 2003

- 2007CB A s were und er w ay and accor dingl y, no agr eem ent a s t o re tr oac ti ve w age i ncre as es h ad bee n re ached. I fany du ty w as owed to the pl ai nti ff s t o i nfo rm them abo ut the sta tus o fthes e n eg ot iat ion s, it w as ow ed by th eir u n ion
. See 5 I l l
. Co mp. Sta t. 315/ 6( c) ( sta ti ng tha t the uni on “ i s the excl usi ve re prese ntati ve f orthe em plo yee s . . . w i th r espectto r ate s ofpay, wages, hour s a nd o therco nd i ti ons ofem plo ym ent. ”)
. A s s tat ed abo ve, the Citywas open ab out i ts i ntenti ons not to p ay ra i ses witho ut co st- saving co ncessi ons. Even tho ugh the pla i nti ffs h ad to choos e whether to ac ce pt ea r l y r et i r ementwhenr ai se s wer e unc er ta i n, su c h a c h oi c e d oe sn ’t e st ab lish co er c ed res ign at ion
. See Palka v. Sh e l t on , 6 23 F
. 3d 44 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( fi ndi ngno c oe rce d res i gnati on e ven though pl ai nti ffwas f or ced toN os. 10

- 2114, 10

- 2243, 10

- 2814, & 10

- 2921 23 ch o o se b etwee n r es i g ni ngt o prote cthi s r eti r ement b en efit s o r c lea rin g h im se lf be for e t h e M er it B oa rd ), ce rt
. den ied, 1 31 S
. Ct. 1 68 0 ( 20 11 )
. Be ca us e th ei r r eti r ement w as vo l unt ar y, th e pl aint i ff s wer e no t depr i ve d o f a pr o te ct ed pr o per tyi nt er es t bys ta te a ct i o n.

I I I . C o nc l us i o n W e A F F I R M i n pa r ta nd R EVER S E a nd R EMA ND in pa rt w ith instru ctions to th e d istri ct court to en t e r su m m ary j ud gm ent f or the City on the pla i nti ff s’ i m pli ed co n tract c l a i m.

8- 24- 11