The courts, however, have held that both home-rule and non-home-rule municipalities may enact administrative procedures for resolving claims for benefits under the Act as long as the procedures enacted are not inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. See Pedersen v. Village of Hoffman Estates , 2014 IL App (1st) 123402, ¶¶ 37, 63, 380 Ill.Dec. 541, 8 N.E.3d 1083 (stating the legal principle as to home-rule units); Englum v. City of Charleston , 2017 IL App (4th) 160747, ¶ 68, 414 Ill.Dec. 328, 80 N.E.3d 61 (stating the legal principle as to non-home-rule units); see also 820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2014) (stating that an employer, including a home-rule unit, may not provide benefits to its recipients under the Act in a manner that is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act). In addition, because the Act created a new liability for employers in derogation of the common law, we must construe the Act strictly and in favor of employers.
"Non-home-rule units are governed by 'Dillon's Rule,' which provides that 'non-home-rule units possess only those powers that are specifically conveyed by the [Illinois] Constitution or by statute.'" Englum v. City of Charleston, 2017 IL App (4th) 160747, ¶ 59 (Emphasis in original.) (quoting Village of Sugar Grove v. Rich, 347 Ill.App.3d 689, 694 (2004)). The regulatory powers granted to non-home-rule municipalities are set forth in article VII, section 7 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 7).
substantive requirements of the Act. Pedersen, 2014 IL App (1st) 123402, ¶ 37; see also Englum v. City of Charleston, 2017 IL App (4th) 160747, ¶ 55; Esser v. City of Peoria, 2019 IL App (3d) 180702, ¶ 13 (city's designation as high deductible plan as its "basic" plan under the Act was not inconsistent with procedures of the Act). The City, pursuant to its home rule authority and in accordance with section 20 of the Act, could define an administrative procedure for determining benefits under the Act, but it could not redefine the Act's substantive terms to the extent that the City would provide benefits inconsistent with the Act.
" Cunningham also initially argued, since Brighton Township is a non-home-rule unit of government, it possesses only the powers which are specifically conveyed to it by the constitution or statute. See Englum v. City of Charleston, 2017 IL App (4th) 160747, ¶ 59, 80 N.E.3d 61 (non-home-rule municipalities are governed by "Dillon's Rule" and possess only those powers specifically conveyed by the constitution or a statute). Since the power to modify or change the budget's line-item amounts was not expressed in the statute, Cunningham argued in his brief, the Board, being a non-home-rule entity, lacked the express power to do so.
Charleston City Code § 1-11-7 (updated May 1, 2018). (In Englum v. City of Charleston , 2017 IL App (4th) 160747, ¶ 68, 414 Ill.Dec. 328, 80 N.E.3d 61, the appellate court held that the City, a non-home-rule entity, had statutory authority to enact the ordinance.)¶ 4 Pursuant to the ordinance, Englum petitioned for health insurance benefits.