Employment Law Observer

A federal court in Chicago recently granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Illinois Department of Labor from enforcing one of several amendments made in August 2023 to the Illinois Day Labor and Temporary Labor Services Act (the "Act").

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed SB 1480 into law on March 23, 2021. Effective immediately, the law significantly amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), Illinois Equal Pay Act (IEPA), and the Illinois Business Corporation Act. The amendments affect employers' ability to use criminal conviction records in employment decisions and imposes new reporting requirements regarding pay equity.

On January 8, 2021, a bill, HB 789 was introduced in the Illinois House that, if passed, will significantly change the treatment of restrictive covenants in the employment context. The new law would require employers to review their form contracts and modify their procedures for signing restrictive covenants. In some instances, it would forbid the use of such covenants. The bill—which would amend the existing Illinois Freedom to Work Act—is likely to pass in some form; if passed, HB 789 would go into effect on June 1, 2021.

According to the Illinois Workplace Transparency Act (IWTA), Illinois employers with at least one employee working in Illinois must provide annual sexual harassment training. Effective January 1, 2020, IWTA amended the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to require that training must commence before December 31, 2020, and occur every calendar year. The Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) recently released a model training program for Illinois employers. To date, the new training requirements have not been affected by the shelter-in-place orders.

On July 31, 2019, Illinois joined a growing list of state and local governments that have banned employers from using salary history in the hiring process. For those keeping count, there are now 18 state bans and 18 municipal bans nationwide. Illinois adopted its salary history ban through an amendment of the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003. Once the ban goes into effect, Illinois employers, employment agencies, and staff will be prohibited from seeking salary history information from a job candidate or her past employer. The main purpose of these bans is to bridge the wage gap between men and women doing the same or similar jobs. Many believe salary history information is used to perpetuate the long-running salary differences between the sexes, because employers have historically set starting salaries based on last reported wages by the applicant. The ban brings significant changes for employers, so it is likely that litigation in this area will increase. Fortunately, there are proactive steps employers can take to prepare for the ban, which goes into effect September 29, 2019.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker recently signed into law the Collective Bargaining Freedom Act, formally ending an initiative of former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner. Effective as of April 12, 2019, the new law limits the ability of municipalities, counties, villages, and taxing districts to enact "right-to-work zones" which prevent employers and unions who work within the zones from executing, implementing, and enforcing union security provisions.

Employers in Illinois will be dealing with double digit minimum wage increases over the next several years, after Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed "The Lifting Up Illinois Working Families Act" into law.

With the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruling that employees need not plead or prove a traditional injury or adverse harm in order to prosecute a claim under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) (see, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Jan. 25, 2019)), the time is now for Illinois employers to review their workplace policies for biometric privacy issues.

This summer, Illinois passed the Illinois Service Member Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (ISERRA). This law is effective January 1, 2019. The new ISERRA explicitly incorporates the federal Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) for its basic protections, case law, and regulations. This post hopefully will serve as a USERRA refresher as well as a summary of the new ISERRA obligations.

Late last month, the Illinois Human Rights Act was amended to provide a new judicial option for complainants and a longer charge filing period. Complainants now have the right to opt out of the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") investigative process and request a right to sue. From there, they can take their claims directly into court. The time for filing charges has also been expanded from 180 days to 300 days. These changes align the Illinois Human Rights Act with federal statutes such as Title VII that provide complaining parties both with the right to forego investigation and a longer filing period.

In light of the recent spotlight in entertainment, government, media, and the law regarding unlawful harassment in the workplace, the Illinois legislature has recently taken action to ensure local governments have a handle on the problem. On November 16, 2017, the General Assembly passed Public Act 100-0554, which amends the Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The law prohibits sexual harassment and requires various state government and local governments to implement sexual harassment-related policies.

Illinois recently joined Oregon as the second state to require certain bereavement leave by passing a law requiring unpaid leave for employees who suffer the death of a child.

Illinois employers, take note — in mid-July, the State's Department of Human Rights published its proposed rules implementing the State's new pregnancy discrimination law.  As readers of this blog will know, the new law took effect at the beginning of 2015. The law imposes additional requirements and clarifies employers' obligation when it comes to accommodating pregnant employees; in effect, it requires that any pregnant employee or job applicant (including those with “conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth”) must be accommodated in the same way that disabled employees are accommodated under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

When continued employment is the sole consideration for a post-employment restrictive covenant (such as a noncompetition agreement), the Illinois Supreme Court requires that an employee be continually employed for a substantial period of time. Generally, a period of two-years is an adequately substantial period.  A strong dissent in a new Illinois opinion suggests that not all judges are on board with the bright-line rule recently endorsed by several Illinois courts.

On August 25, 2014, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law House Bill 4157, amending the Illinois Human Rights Act (the "Act") to extend the Act's sexual harassment protections to unpaid interns. Beginning on January 1, 2015, the definition of "employee" will be expanded to include unpaid interns who meet certain criteria.  

In a case where the defendant construction company was represented by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently ruled that the employer company did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it rescinded a conditional job offer to an employee who failed its job-related evaluation. The Court based its decision on the ADA regulations, which provide that an employer can defend against a discrimination claim by showing that standards, tests, or selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out or otherwise deny a job or benefit to an individual with a disability are job-related and consistent with business necessity. In the alternative, the ADA permits an employer to conduct post-offer examinations as long as it does so for all individuals entering the same job category.

A federal district court judge in Northern Illinois has ruled that an employee handbook, while not a “contract”, may still be an “agreement” upon which employees may rely — and sue. In this particular case, the judge denied the employer’s motion to dismiss a claim under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), finding that the handbook’s statements regarding compensation were an “agreement” upon which the employees’ could base their claim, despite the handbook’s numerous disclaimers stating that no legally enforceable promise was being made. The ruling, while narrowly applied in this case to support an IWPCA claim, could potentially raise major issues for Illinois employers that rely on such disclaimers to protect themselves against claims based on handbook provisions.

Based upon a recent decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, Illinois employers have an additional reason to be careful when investigating misconduct by current and former employees. In the case, Lawlor v. North American Corporation of Illinois, Case No. 112530 (Oct. 18, 2012), the State’s highest court for the first time upheld an award of significant damages to a former employee based on the former employer's invasion of her privacy during an investigation into her competitive behavior. The decision is even more significant because the defendant employer was actually held vicariously liable for intrusions committed by a third-party investigator, signaling to all employers the importance of having a policy in place for such investigations.

A federal court has issued a judgement for $1.2 million for back wages and damages against the owner and the manager of two Mexican restaurants in Decatur, Illinois based on the court's finding of pervasive violations of the FLSA. The U.S. DOL had investigated the pay practices of these restaurants and found innumerable violations of the FLSA with respect to how the wait staff and kitchen staff were paid by the restaurant.

AMD Industries, Inc.of Cicero, IL discovered asbestos containing materials on its heaters, boilers and connected pipes. Allegedly, they used their own workers, who were untrained and not issued proper protective clothing and equipment, to remove the asbestos and thereby exposed the workers to this hazard. AMD was prosecuted under OSHA's newly created "Severe Violators Enforcement Program," which targets recalcitrant employers who have previously been cited for multiple OSHA violations in the past. DOL press release.