Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that BTI Consulting has ranked the firm as a “Leader in Litigation” in its BTI Litigation Outlook 2026 client survey.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that 80 lawyers are recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, with ten receiving this honor for the first time. Additionally, 22 Hinshaw lawyers are included in The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Kelechi Ajoku has been re-elected to serve on the Executive Board of the St. John's University School of Law Alumni of Color Chapter ("AOCC") for the 2025 – 2026 term.

The intended effect of HB1698 is to reduce employer medical costs, limit indemnity payouts on certain claims including loss of trade cases, strengthen rules on fraud, and provide more equity in Commission decisions and awards.

The Executive Order directs federal agencies to eliminate or de-prioritize disparate impact liability “to the maximum degree possible,” fundamentally realigning federal enforcement around intentional discrimination and away from statistical disparities alone.

Learn about key changes to the Illinois Workplace Transparency Act requirements taking effect January 1, 2026, and read our latest blog post for practical guidance on how employers can ensure compliance.

Read how a Seventh Circuit ruling has offered employers greater leverage to challenge collective actions and limit litigation risks.

On March 8, 2013, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a new version of Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification Form. As most employers are aware, Form I-9 must be used to verify the identity and employment authorization of all new employees. The new version of the Form I-9 (available for download by clicking here) can be identified by the date located at the bottom left-hand side of the form — the new Form I-9 shows the date “03/08/13.” Employers are instructed to begin using the new Form I-9 immediately or as soon as practicable for all new employees. Employers who utilize a version of the Form I-9 older than the 03/08/13 version after May 7, 2013, may be subject to fines and penalties. USCIS has provided this 60-day "grace period" in recognition of the fact that “some employers may need additional time in order to make necessary updates to their business processes.” Employers should not complete the new Form I-9 for current employees for whom there is already a Form I-9 on file.Notably, most of the changes to the form are cosmetic and are “designed to minimize errors in form completion.” The new Form I-9 has been revised and expanded to two pages, and the Form Instructions have been revised to include additional detail. (The new detail in the Form Instructions is not actually "new"; it has all previously been included in the Form M-274, Handbook for Employers.) The only substantive changes to the Form I-9 are the addition of data fields for the employee’s foreign passport information, telephone number and e-mail address.Employers should be aware that software vendors often seek to exploit Form I-9 changes by offering “new” tracking services. In this instance, the cosmetic changes should not require any new software or services. Any offers for such services should be carefully considered. If you have any questions about the new form or about documenting the hiring process in general, please contact your regular Hinshaw attorney.

November 6, 2012 is election day, and millions of Americans across the county will cast their vote for the next President of the United States, as well as on a number of other important issues. In Illinois, under certain circumstances, employees may be entitled to time off work for voting. The state’s Election Code grants employees the right to take two hours of leave from work to vote between polling hours. To take advantage of this leave period, employees must make their requests before Election Day. Employers have the right to specify the hours during which employees can exercise voting leave, but should not otherwise limit employees’ right to take such leave. Employers should consider informing employees of these requirements in advance of the election if absenteeism has been a problem on election days in the past.

Download the hardcopy newsletter: Employment Practices - October 2012

Exempt Classification of Position of Employment Does Not Automatically Create Predominate Issue for Class CertificationA group of employees filed suit against a news organization on behalf of current, former and future non exempt employees at the company’s Los Angeles facility. The class argued that the agency’s reporters were not exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and, as a result, the employer wrongfully denied them overtime compensation, as well as other issues arising under state law. The class was certified and a jury returned a $2.5 million verdict. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit originally affirmed the trial court’s ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the opinion and remanded it for reconsideration in light of the Court’s holding in Dukes v. Walmart. On remand, the court focused on whether common questions of law or fact predominated over individual issues, a requirement for the form of class action at issue. While the Ninth Circuit ultimately remanded the case to the district court, it held that predominance could not be presumed simply because the agency had a uniform policy of classifying all reporters as exempt. Rather, it was required to evaluate whether individual issues existed that would make class treatment impossible. This case creates a valuable precedent for employers that a uniform policy does not in and of itself render class treatment appropriate, and thereby offers an additional basis on which to challenge class treatment.Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., Nos. 08-55483, 08-56740, (9th Cir., Mar. 4, 2013)

Breaking News: Florida Court Declares 104-Week Limit of Temporary Benefits Unconstitutional, Reinstates 260-Week CapThe Florida First District Court of Appeals was presented with a question of the constitutionality of the 104-week limitation on temporary indemnity benefits based on an injured worker who was not yet ready to return to work after the 104 weeks of temporary benefits, but who was not able to prove eventual permanent and total disability benefits, and therefore not entitled to indemnity benefits. The claimant’s condition left him in the not-uncommon position of exhausting his statutory benefits prior to reaching the ability to return to substantial gainful employment. As amended in 1994, the Florida Statutes allowed only 104 weeks of temporary benefits. The court, in a scathing 25-page opinion, found that the claimant was denied access to the courts and to the constitutionally granted right to the administration of justice without denial or delay, in violation of the Florida Constitution. The court found unconstitutional the 1994 change to the law, which revised entitlement to temporary benefits from 260 weeks to 104 weeks. The court therefore remanded the case, with instructions to grant the claimant additional temporary total disability benefits not to exceed 260 weeks, as would have been provided under the previous relevant statutory provision prior to the 1994 amendment of Fla. Stat. § 440.15(2)(a). The court evaluated the workers’ compensation statutes in all other states and found that more than 40 allow a minimum of 312 weeks, and only five jurisdictions limit disability to 104 weeks. The court concluded that the natural consequence of “such a system of legal redress is potential economic ruination of the injured worker, with all the terrible consequences that this portends for the worker and his or her family,” and indicated that this system of redress for injury is “not merely unfair, but is fundamentally and manifestly unjust.”  The court, however, did not strike the entire 1994 or 2003 amendments to the statute, but only severed Section 440.15(2)(a), reviving the pre-1994 statute solely as it speaks to the time-limitation on temporary disability benefits. As this is a substantive change in the law and deals with an unconstitutional statute, the decision affects all cases, regardless of the date of accident. This case has a tremendous impact on the current cases nearing the 104-week mark, as well as those currently in litigation for permanent and total disability benefits. Bradley Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, Case No. 1D12-3562 (1st DCA Feb. 28, 2013)

NLRB Recess Appointments Are Invalid