Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

Perry & Associates, LLC v. Illinois Department of Employment Security,

2017 IL App (1st) 143299

Appellate Court 

Caption

PERRY & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE 

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY and 

THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DefendantsAppellees.

District & No. First District, Fourth Division

Docket No. 1-14-3299

Rule 23 order filed

Rule 23 order

withdrawn

Opinion filed

September 30, 2016

January 4, 2017

February 2, 2017

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 14-L-50442; the 

Hon. Robert Lopez Cepero, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Gregory F. Ladle, of John L. Ladle, P.C., of Chicago, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Carolyn E. Shapiro, 

Solicitor General, and Mary C. Labrec, Assistant Attorney General, of 

counsel), for appellee.
- 2 - 

Panel JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Justices Howse and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.

 OPINION 

¶ 1 Plaintiff Perry & Associates, LLC, appeals from the circuit court’s order affirming the 

administrative decision of defendants, the Illinois Department of Employment Security 

(Department) and the Director of Employment Security (Director), holding that the raise in 

plaintiff’s rate for contributions to the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund (Fund) for 

calendar year 2013 was proper. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Department cannot 

retroactively change the contribution rate for an employer midyear because (1) this change 

violates the terms of section 1509 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 

405/1509 (West 2012)), (2) the unilateral ability to increase the rate at any time on any year 

violates public policy, (3) the retroactive application of the rate and imposition is improper, (4) 

the Department caused delays in proceedings by failing to provide a fair hearing such that it is 

inequitable to assess interest, and (5) the refusal to address the benefits to the claimant as a 

defense to the rate was improper. 

¶ 2 Plaintiff is an architectural and structural engineering firm located in Chicago, Illinois, 

with Christopher J. Perry as the principal. In November 2011, plaintiff, through Perry, 

terminated the employment of the claimant Clarence Passons. Passons filed a claim for 

unemployment benefits with the Department. Plaintiff contested Passons unemployment 

claim, contending that Passons was ineligible due to misconduct. 

¶ 3 The administrative proceedings over the benefits claim were complicated and lasted 

multiple years. Three hearings were conducted before two different referees. In December 

2012, following the third hearing, the referee found that the claimant was terminated for 

misconduct and ineligible for benefits. Passons appealed to the Board of Review (Board), 

which reversed the referee’s decision in April 2013. The Board concluded that the evidence did 

not support a finding of misconduct. Plaintiff sought review in the circuit court. In December 

2013, the circuit court remanded the case to the Board with instructions to assess credibility in 

making its decision. In February 2014, the Board issued its new decision with credibility 

determinations and set aside the referee’s decision. Plaintiff again filed for administrative 

review in the circuit court. In September 2014, the circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision 

finding it was not clearly erroneous. Plaintiff filed an appeal with this court. We affirmed the 

Board’s decision, finding the Board’s determination that Passons was not terminated for 

misconduct under section 602A of the Act was not clearly erroneous and Passons was eligible 

for benefits. See Perry & Associates, LLC v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 

2016 IL App (1st) 143344-U. Plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois 

Supreme Court, which the court denied on September 28, 2016. Perry & Associates, LLC v. 

Illinois Department of Employment Security, No. 120799 (Ill. Sept. 28, 2016). Thus, our 

decision affirming the Board’s finding that Passons was eligible for benefits is the final

decision on the benefits case. 
- 3 - 

¶ 4 As a result of the December 2012 determination by the referee that Passons was ineligible 

for unemployment benefits, the benefit charges incurred by plaintiff due to payments made to 

Passons were cancelled. The Department reduced the rate at which plaintiff was required to 

make contributions to the Fund for the calendar year 2013 to the minimum rate of 0.55% of 

taxable wages. In April 2013, the Board issued its decision setting aside the referee’s finding 

and found Passons eligible for benefits. In July 2013, the benefit charges were restored to 

plaintiff’s account based on the Board’s decision. The Department revised the contribution rate 

for calendar year 2013 to 2.85% of taxable wages, retroactive to the beginning of the year. 

¶ 5 In August 2013, plaintiff filed a protest to the revised contribution rate. Plaintiff asked the 

Department to reverse the rate increase, arguing that it had a “substantial likelihood of 

prevailing” on the benefits case in the circuit court. The Director denied plaintiff’s protest 

“unless and until” the circuit court ruled in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff subsequently filed a 

protest and petition for hearing with the Department, asserting that “the computed rate is 

against the weight of the evidence of a chargeable claim due to repeated misconduct on the part 

of the Department” and the Board was “not authorized” to revise the contribution rate. 

¶ 6 In October 2013, the Director’s representative issued his recommended decision that the 

Director’s decision denying plaintiff’s application for review be affirmed. The findings of fact 

stated that plaintiff’s 2013 contribution rate revision from the minimum 0.55% to the 

“experienced” 2.85% was “solely attributable to the addition to [plaintiff’s] account of benefit 

charges” in the fourth quarter of 2011 and the first two quarters of 2012. All of the benefit 

charges related to the November 2011 termination of Passons. The Director’s representative 

concluded that under section 1509 of the Act, the Director’s orders are considered prima facie

correct and the burden is on the protesting employer to prove that the decision is incorrect. The 

Director’s representative found that plaintiff failed to meet its burden and that plaintiff failed to 

state a basis for relief under the facts or the law. 

¶ 7 Plaintiff subsequently filed an objection to the recommended decision of the Director’s 

representative. Plaintiff contended that section 1509 provides that the contribution rate is “final 

and conclusive” in all proceedings, and the Department cannot revise the contribution rate 

after the rate has been set. In November 2013, the Director remanded the case to his 

representative to conduct a hearing. 

¶ 8 In March 2014, the Director’s representative conducted a telephone hearing with Perry as 

the representative for plaintiff. Later in March 2014, following the hearing, the director’s 

representative issued his recommended decision that the Director’s order denying plaintiff’s 

objection be affirmed. The second recommended decision is substantially similar to his prior 

recommendation. 

¶ 9 In April 2014, plaintiff filed its objection to the recommended decision of the director’s 

representative. Plaintiff raised several reasons for its objection. First, plaintiff argued that the 

recommended decision results in an unconstitutional retroactive tax. Plaintiff asserted that this 

was an “extraordinary” situation because it involved events more than two years ago and the 

extended time frame for adjudication was the fault of the Department. Next, the recommended 

decision was procedurally incorrect based on the Board’s actions on the benefits case in 2013. 

Finally, the recommended decision is incompatible with the supreme court’s decision in 

Winakor v. Annunzio, 409 Ill. 236 (1951), because in Winakor, the rate revision was made 

within the same operative tax year, whereas here the Department’s actions have made the 

revision years later. 
- 4 - 

¶ 10 In May 2014, the Director issued his decision. The Director found that under section 1509 

of the Act (820 ILCS 405/1509 (West 2012)), plaintiff was barred from contesting the amount 

of benefits charges used to calculate its contribution rate if the statement of benefit charges was 

served on plaintiff, and the record indicated that it was. The Director found that plaintiff’s

contentions regarding the benefit charges could be “solely resolved” by the resolution of the 

benefits case. The Director stated that he had no authority to disregard the decision of the 

Board and its finding that Passons was eligible for benefits had not been set aside. 

Accordingly, the contribution rate for 2013 was correct. 

¶ 11 Further, the Director observed that the Department’s authority to issue revised contribution 

rate determinations was established in Winakor and is not unconstitutional. The Director also 

noted that interest on additional contributions due to an upwardly revised contribution rate 

would be waived if the employer pays the additional contributions within 30 days after the 

notice of the revised contribution rate was mailed. See 56 Ill. Adm. Code 2765.63 (1987). If 

the employer failed to pay the additional contributions within 30 days, then interest would 

begin to accrue on the unpaid balance on the account from the date that the original 

contributions accrued. If the revised contribution rate was later set aside, then employer’s 

remedy was to seek a refund under section 2201 of the Act. 820 ILCS 405/2201 (West 2012). 

See also Northern Trust Co. v. Bernardi, 115 Ill. 2d 354 (1987). The Director overruled 

plaintiff’s objections and adopted the recommended decision of his representative. The August 

2013 order denying plaintiff’s application for review of its contribution rate was affirmed.

¶ 12 In June 2014, plaintiff filed a petition for administrative review in the circuit court. In 

September 2014, the circuit court affirmed the Director’s decision, finding the decision was 

not clearly erroneous. 

¶ 13 This appeal followed. We note that this court stayed proceedings in this appeal of the rate 

case pending resolution of the benefits case because a ruling in favor of plaintiff would have 

rendered the appeal in this case moot. Since this court affirmed the Board’s finding that 

Passons was eligible for unemployment benefits, the stay was lifted and the proceedings 

resumed. See Perry, 2016 IL App (1st) 143344-U.

¶ 14 On appeal, plaintiff argues that (1) the Department lacks the authority to revise an 

employer’s contribution rate during a calendar year, (2) the Department could not charge 

plaintiff for interest and penalties on the additional contributions due after the contribution rate 

was upwardly revised, and (3) the Director failed to address plaintiff’s claim that its 

contribution rate was too high because the Department did not reduce Passons’s benefits based 

on his other sources of income. 

¶ 15 Initially, we note that plaintiff’s brief fails to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 

341(h)(6), which requires the party to provide a statement of facts with the appropriate 

citations to the record. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016). Plaintiff’s statement of facts 

contains a single citation to the record on appeal for the circuit court’s order affirming the 

Director’s decision. We further point out that plaintiff’s reply brief contains an inappropriate 

internal notation referencing an Illinois Supreme Court decision where the holding is counter 

to plaintiff’s argument on appeal. 

¶ 16 When a party appeals the circuit court’s decision on a complaint for administrative review, 

the appellate court’s role is to review the administrative decision rather than the circuit court’s 

decision. Siwek v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 324 Ill. App. 

3d 820, 824 (2001). The Administrative Review Law provides that judicial review of an 
- 5 - 

administrative agency decision shall extend to all questions of law and fact presented by the 

entire record before the court. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2012). Further, “[t]he findings and 

conclusions of the administrative agency on questions of fact shall be held to be prima facie 

true and correct.” Id. “The standard of review, ‘which determines the degree of deference 

given to the agency’s decision,’ turns on whether the issue presented is a question of fact, a 

question of law, or a mixed question of law and fact.” Comprehensive Community Solutions, 

Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill. 2d 455, 471 (2005) (quoting AFM Messenger 

Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 390 (2001)). 

¶ 17 “A mixed question of law and fact asks the legal effect of a given set of facts.” Id. at 472. 

Stated another way, a mixed question is one in which the historical facts are admitted or 

established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory 

standard, or whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated. AFM 

Messenger, 198 Ill. 2d at 391. A mixed question of law and fact is reviewed under the clearly 

erroneous standard. Comprehensive Community, 216 Ill. 2d at 472. 

¶ 18 The clearly erroneous standard of review lies between the manifest weight of the evidence 

standard and the de novo standard, and as such, it grants some deference to the agency’s 

decision. AFM Messenger, 198 Ill. 2d at 392. “[W]hen the decision of an administrative 

agency presents a mixed question of law and fact, the agency decision will be deemed ‘clearly 

erroneous’ only where the reviewing court, on the entire record, is ‘left with the definite and 

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Id. at 395 (quoting United States v. 

United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “If there is any evidence in the record to 

support the Board’s decision, that decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the 

evidence and must be sustained on review.” Woods v. Illinois Department of Employment 

Security, 2012 IL App (1st) 101639, ¶ 16.

¶ 19 The parties disagree on the appropriate standard of review. Plaintiff asserts that the 

standard of review of an administrative agency’s decision is clearly erroneous. The 

Department contends this court should review the Department’s decision de novo because the 

appeal raises only a question of law. We need not determine which standard of review is 

correct because plaintiff’s arguments fail under both standards.

¶ 20 “The Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/100 et seq. (West 2004)) was 

enacted to provide economic relief to individuals who become involuntarily unemployed.” 

Manning v. Department of Employment Security, 365 Ill. App. 3d 553, 557 (2006). “The Act 

recognizes that involuntary unemployment not only burdens unemployed individuals and their 

families but also threatens the health, safety, morals, and welfare of all Illinois citizens.” 

Petrovic v. Department of Employment Security, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 23 (citing 820 ILCS 

405/100 (West 2012)). 

“[T]he Act establishes a system to collect contributions from employers and to pay 

benefits to eligible unemployed persons. The primary source of income to the Illinois 

Unemployment Trust Fund is contributions assessed from Illinois employers. Although 

initially each employer must contribute to the fund according to a statutory rate, the 

Department, after a prescribed time, determines an employer’s individual, variable 

contribution rate through use of an experience rating system. Under this system, the 

cost of fund replenishment among employers is allocated on the basis of their 

experience with the risk of unemployment.” Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. State of 

Illinois Department of Employment Security, 131 Ill. 2d 23, 28 (1989). 
- 6 - 

¶ 21 Section 1503.1(C)(3) provides that the contribution rate is determined in part by the 

benefits charges in the 36-month period ending on June 30, 2012. 820 ILCS 405/1503.1(C)(3) 

(West 2012). Passons was terminated in November 2011, and the disputed benefits would have 

been paid within the relevant period from November 2011 to June 2012. 

¶ 22 The crux of plaintiff’s argument on appeal is whether the Department had the authority to 

revise plaintiff’s contribution rate during the relevant calendar year and apply the revision 

retroactively. The reason behind the revision was the ongoing litigation in the benefits case. 

When the contribution rate was initially set in December 2012, the hearing officer had found 

Passons ineligible for benefits. The benefit charges were removed from plaintiff’s account and 

the rate reflected this standing. However, in April 2013, the Board reversed the finding of the 

hearing officer and reinstated Passons’s benefits. The benefit charges were reassessed to 

plaintiff. The Department then revised plaintiff’s contribution rate, taking into account the 

payments of unemployment benefits to Passons. The holding that Passons was eligible for 

unemployment benefits remains in effect. 

¶ 23 Plaintiff contends that section 1509 of the Act does not contemplate the revision of a 

contribution rate by the Department. Section 1509 provides, in relevant part: 

“The Director shall promptly notify each employer of his rate of contribution for each 

calendar year by mailing notice thereof to his last known address. Such rate 

determination shall be final and conclusive upon the employer for all purposes and in 

all proceedings whatsoever unless within 15 days after mailing of notice thereof, the 

employer files with the Director an application for review of such rate determination, 

setting forth his reasons in support thereof.” 820 ILCS 405/1509 (West 2012).

¶ 24 Plaintiff interprets section 1509’s setting of the rate as “final and conclusive” on both 

parties, the employer and the Department. However, this interpretation was rejected by the 

Illinois Supreme Court in Winakor v. Annunzio, 409 Ill. 236 (1951). In Winakor, one of the 

employer plaintiffs contended that the lower contribution rate became “final and conclusive 

upon the expiration of fifteen days and that, consequently, the action of the Director in 

revoking this rate and assigning a new rate of 2.7 was a nullity.” Id. at 248. The employer relied 

on a previous version of section 1509 containing the same language quoted above, section 

18(c)(7)(C) of the Unemployment Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1947, ch. 48, 

¶ 234(c)(7)(C) (now codified as 820 ILCS 405/1509)). Winakor, 409 Ill. at 248-49. 

¶ 25 The supreme court held that the statute was not binding on the Department. 

“Section 18(c)(7)(C) does not support the contention made. It is to be observed that, 

while the statute specifically makes the rate determination binding upon the employer, 

it does not make it binding upon the Director, either expressly or by implication. The 

relief of unemployment is a public purpose and the Unemployment Compensation Act 

is an exertion of the police power of the State. [Citation.] The State has a direct interest 

in the administration and enforcement of the act paramount to the personal interest of 

the individual employer. [Citation.] It is well established that a governmental agency, 

unless expressly included within the terms of a statute of limitation, is excluded from 

the operation of the statute so far as public rights, as distinguished from private rights, 

are concerned. [Citations.] In the absence of an express provision making an original 

rate determination conclusive upon the Director, it follows that the rate determination 

of July 29, 1948, was properly and effectively revoked on October 19, 1948.” Id. at 

249.
- 7 - 

¶ 26 We are not persuaded by plaintiff’s assertions that Winakor is inapplicable. Plaintiff 

characterizes the holding in Winakor as giving the Department “carte blanche” to revise an 

employer’s contribution rate “whenever it so chooses.” Neither Winakor nor the actions in the 

instant case suggest that the Department can revise a contribution rate absent a change in 

circumstances, and we decline to interpret the decision as giving such power. Rather, Winakor

established that the “final and conclusive” language in section 1509 is not applicable to the 

Department, and therefore, the Department’s revision of plaintiff’s contribution rate was not 

barred by section 1509. 

¶ 27 Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the Fifth District decision in Marco v. Doherty, 276 Ill. 

App. 3d 121 (1995), does not affect the applicability of Winakor in the present case. In Marco, 

the issue on appeal was whether the Director could “retroactively increase an employer’s 

contribution amount after having issued a final decision that adjudicated the contribution 

amount based upon the findings of fact and recommendations of the Director’s representative 

in an administrative hearing.” Id. There, the employer had adjudicated the Director’s 

assessment of unpaid contributions, interest, and penalties through the administrative process 

after paying the amount under protest. The Director entered a final decision setting the 

contribution rate and subsequently, the employer was assessed an amount lower than the 

original assessment. The employer did not appeal the decision and subsequently filed a claim 

for a refund. The Director issued a partial refund with the explanation that it revised the 

employer’s rate and the employer owed more than what was determined in her decision. The 

employer appealed and the reviewing court held that the Director does not have the authority to 

change its own final decisions retroactively. Id. at 122-24. 

¶ 28 The Department cited Winakor as support for its authority to revise the rate, but the 

reviewing court found Winakor inapplicable to the circumstances in the case. 

“We find that Winakor is inapplicable because it does not address the binding effect 

of a Director’s ‘Final Decision’ issued following an adjudicatory administrative 

hearing. Winakor involved the assignment of a contribution rate by the Director. This 

rate was not determined at an administrative hearing. Later, the Director changed the 

assigned rate, and the employer appealed through the administrative process and 

ultimately through the courts. Because the initial rate assigned was not the result of an 

adjudicatory process, the holding in Winakor fails to address the issue before us.” Id. at 

123-24. 

¶ 29 The decision in Marco was limited to the specific circumstances in which the Department 

overreached its statutory authority. The same situation is not present in this case, which is more 

analogous to Winakor. Further, Marco did not limit the holding of Winakor, as plaintiff 

incorrectly asserts. Additionally, we reject plaintiff’s public policy argument as it repeats the 

same assertions made when arguing that Winakor was inapplicable, which we have already 

considered. 

¶ 30 Plaintiff also propounds contradictory positions on the applicability of section 2200 of the 

Act. First, plaintiff observes that the Director did not rely on that section in his decision. But 

then contends that section 2200 is applicable only when the employer has become liable for the 

payment of any contributions, interest, or penalties not originally incurred by him. We find 

plaintiff’s interpretation of section 2200 of the Act to be misleading. 

¶ 31 Section 2200 sets forth five independent grounds for the Director to “determine and assess 

the amount of such contributions or deficiency, as the case may be, together with interest and 
- 8 - 

penalties due and unpaid.” 820 ILCS 405/2200 (West 2012). Plaintiff has referred to only one 

of the five grounds for the suggestion that section 2200 is not applicable. First, section 2200 

does not involve the determination of an employer’s contribution rate to the Fund. Rather, this 

section covers the Director’s ability to determine and assess the amount of the contributions to 

the Fund. 

¶ 32 Nevertheless, to the extent that section 2200 is applicable in this case, the relevant basis for 

the Director’s authority arises under either of these two provisions: (1) “[i]f it shall appear to 

the Director that any employing unit or person has failed to pay any contribution, interest or 

penalty as and when required by the provisions of this Act or by any rule or regulation of the 

Director,” or (2) “if the amount of any contribution payment made by an employing unit for 

any period is deemed by the Director to be incorrect in that it does not include all contributions 

payable for such period.” Id. Here, the Director revised the contribution rate after Passons’s 

benefits were reinstated, and accordingly, the amount of plaintiff’s contributions was incorrect. 

Further, plaintiff failed to pay the additional contributions as required. 

¶ 33 Plaintiff next contends that the Director improperly assessed interest on the retroactive 

additional contributions. However, the Director had explicit authority to assess interest under 

the Illinois Administrative Code. Section 2765.63 provides for the imposition of interest as a 

consequence of upwards revision of the contribution rate. Under section 2765.63(a), the 

employer is allowed a 30-day period in which to pay the additional contributions due for that 

calendar year. 56 Ill. Adm. Code 2765.63(a) (1987). Section 2765.63(c) further provides: 

“If an employer fails to pay the full amount of additional contributions due as a result of 

an upward revision to its contribution rate within 30 days of the date of mailing of such 

revised rate notice, the additional contributions due as a result of this higher rate shall 

accrue and become payable on the date the original contributions for that calendar year 

accrued and became payable in accordance with Section 1400 of the Act.” 56 Ill. Adm. 

Code 2765.63(c) (1987). 

¶ 34 Under section 2765.63(c)(1), if an employer fails to pay the additional contributions within 

30 days, then “[i]nterest shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the employer’s account from the 

date that the original contributions accrued and became payable.” 56 Ill. Adm. Code 

2765.63(c)(1)(1987). 

¶ 35 Moreover, the Illinois Supreme Court in Northern Trust Co. v. Bernardi, 115 Ill. 2d 354, 

368 (1987), has approved of this assessment of this interest. 

“In fact, section 1401 requires that an employer pay interest if he has not paid 

contributions ‘when required of him by the provisions of this Act and the rules and 

regulations of the Director, whether or not the amount thereof has been determined and 

assessed by the Director.’ (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 551.) 

The law further provides that interest shall begin to accrue ‘from the day upon which 

said contribution became due.’ (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 551.) *** Thus, 

interest on deficiencies accumulates from the date the deficient contributions were due, 

not the date on which those deficiencies are later discovered. To hold otherwise would 

unjustly enrich an employer, at the trust fund’s expense, by allowing the employer to 

retain profits earned with the use of the deficient sums between the dates they were due 

and demand was made.” Id. 

See also 820 ILCS 405/1401 (West 2012). 
- 9 - 

¶ 36 Other than the internal notation in which plaintiff admits the holding is against its position, 

plaintiff fails to address the supreme court’s holding in Northern Trust. We find that Northern 

Trust forecloses plaintiff’s argument, and the assessment of interest was proper under the Act. 

Plaintiff could have avoided the accrual of any interest if it had paid the additional 

contributions under protest within 30 days of notification of the revised contribution rate and 

the amounts owing. Plaintiff failed to do so, and the interest was properly assessed. 

¶ 37 Finally, plaintiff raises two arguments relating to the proceedings in the benefits case as 

having an impact on the revision of the contribution. First, plaintiff contends that it was 

inequitable to revise the contribution rate because of delays in the administrative process. 

Plaintiff complains of the hearing officer in the benefits case that considered the case twice, but 

was later removed and the case was considered by a new hearing officer. Plaintiff claims that 

these circumstances caused delay and considerable time and expense. However, these 

circumstances have no bearing on the determination of plaintiff’s contribution rate.

¶ 38 The contribution rate was revised as a result of the Board’s reversal of the third

administrative hearing before the new hearing officer. The revised rate and additional 

contributions were only applicable to calendar year 2013. Again, if plaintiff had paid the 

additional contributions under protest, no interest would have been assessed. Plaintiff’s 

complaints regarding the benefits case are irrelevant to the instant case. 

¶ 39 Second, plaintiff asserts that the Director erred in refusing to consider its claim that 

Passons received other sources of income and that such income should have reduced Passons’s 

benefits and plaintiff’s contribution rate. The Director found plaintiff’s argument to be barred 

because plaintiff was served with a statement of benefit charges. Section 1509 provides, in 

relevant part, “[i]n any such proceeding, the employer shall be barred from questioning the 

amount of the benefit wages or benefit charges as shown on any statement of benefit wages or 

statement of benefit charges which forms the basis for the computation of such rate unless such 

employer shall prove that he was not, as provided in Section 1508, furnished with such 

statement containing the benefit wages or benefit charges which he maintains are erroneous.” 

820 ILCS 405/1509 (West 2012). Plaintiff cannot challenge the amount of benefit charges in a 

challenge of the contribution rate. The appropriate forum to challenge the benefit charges, and 

specifically the amount of benefits Passons received, is as part of a benefit action. This is not 

the proper forum and we decline to consider the merits of this claim. 

¶ 40 Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook 

County. 

¶ 41 Affirmed.