Court sides with NJ judges in pension dispute
Headline Legal News
New Jersey's Supreme Court dealt a partial defeat to one of Gov. Chris Christie's signature legislative accomplishments Tuesday when it ruled that the state's judges don't have to contribute more to their pensions and health benefits. A leading state lawmaker immediately said the battle over the matter would continue.
The narrow 3-2 decision sided with a legal challenge filed last year by a state Superior Court judge in Hudson County who argued that the law imposing the pension and health care benefits changes violated a part of the state constitution that set judges' salaries and said they cannot be reduced.
The justices noted in their ruling that without a corresponding salary increase, the increased contributions would eventually cost judges at least $17,000 annually in take-home pay, amounting to a pay cut of more than 10 percent.
Christie, a Republican, had worked with the Democratic-controlled Legislature to pass the law last year. It affects hundreds of thousands of government workers around the state in addition to between 400 and 500 sitting judges and justices.
Related listings
-
Tenn. court says convicted killer can keep money
Headline Legal News 07/18/2012A Tennessee appeals court has reluctantly ruled that a Johnson City man convicted of killing his wife in a bathtub for the insurance money can keep $200,000 in life insurance proceeds. The Knoxville News Sentinel reported Wednesday that the Tennessee...
-
Texas Voter ID Law to be Tested in a Federal Court
Headline Legal News 07/09/2012The fate of Texas' controversial new voter ID law - which requires voters to show photo identification at the polls - is set to be decided this week in a federal court in Washington. The state, which claims the law will prevent voter fraud, is seekin...
-
Cal Supreme Court rules in child death case
Headline Legal News 07/06/2012Welfare officials can take children from parents who negligently cause the death of a son or daughter, such as failing to place them in a car seat, even if there was no criminal harm, the California Supreme Court ruled. The court ruled Thursday that ...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.