Photo of JT Charron

Illinois employers navigated an avalanche of new laws in 2023, with more on the horizon in 2024 (and even 2025). New paid leave obligations for Illinois (and Chicago and Cook County) employers are a significant change, and additional developments expand employer liability in some circumstances where individuals are victims of gender-related violence. There are also new obligations for employers who use temporary employees, and increased protections for striking workers–not to mention a soon-to-be requirement for employers to include pay scale and benefits information in job postings starting January 1, 2025.

Here are key updates that Illinois employers should be aware of for 2024–and beyond.

1. New paid leave laws in Illinois, Chicago and Cook County

Employers in Illinois, Chicago and Cook County have new paid leave obligations for 2024 under three new laws:

  • The Illinois Paid Leave for All Workers Act (PLAWA) (effective January 1, 2024) requires Illinois employers to provide most employees with a minimum of 40 hours of paid leave per year to be used for any reason at allnot just for sick leave.
  • The Cook County Paid Leave Ordinance (effective December 31, 2023, the sunset date of the prior Cook County Earned Sick Leave Ordinance) covers employees who work in Cook County and largely mirrors the PLAWA. The Cook County Commission on Human Rights will begin enforcement of the paid leave Ordinance on February 1, 2024.
  • The Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance (effective July 1, 2024) will require covered employers to provide eligible employees 40 hours of paid sick leave and 40 hours of paid leave (the latter usable for any reason) per 12-month accrual period, for a total entitlement of up to 80 hours of PTO per 12-month period.

Importantly, under both the PLAWA and the Cook County Paid Leave Ordinance:

  • Eligible employees earn 1 hour of paid leave for every 40 hours worked, up to a minimum of 40 hours in a 12-month period (with exempt employees presumed to work 40 hours per workweek for accrual purposes, but leave accrues based on their regular workweek if their regular workweek is less than 40 hours)
  • Though unused accrued paid leave from one 12-month period can be carried over to the next, employers can cap the use of paid leave in one 12-month period to 40 hours
  • Frontloading is permitted, and employers who frontload 40 hours at the beginning of the 12-month period are not required to carry over unused accrued paid leave
  • Employers cannot require employees to provide a reason they are using paid leave, or any documentation or certification as proof or in support of paid leave

The Chicago Paid Leave Ordinance diverges from the PLAWA and the Cook County Ordinance in several ways, including:

  • Covered employees will accrue one hour of paid sick leave and one hour of paid leave for every 35 hours worked-five hours less than what is required to accrue an hour of paid leave under the PLAWA or Cook County Ordinance
  • Employees may carryover up to 80 hours of paid sick leave and up to 16 hours of paid leave from one 12-month accrual period to the next
  • Employers may frontload 40 hours of paid sick leave and 40 hours of paid leave on the first day of the 12-month accrual period. Frontloaded paid leave does not carry over from one 12-month period to the next (unless the employer prevents the employee from having meaningful access to their PTO), but up to 80 hours of unused paid sick leave does
  • Employers with more than 50 employees in Chicago are required to pay the employee the monetary equivalent of unused accrued paid leave when an employee separates from the employer or transfers outside of the City of Chicago (see chart below for specifics)
  • Unlike in the PLAWA or Cook County Ordinance, unlimited PTO is specifically addressed in the Chicago Paid Leave Ordinance (so employers with unlimited PTO policies should review the Ordinance closely)

Continue Reading A Legislative Snowstorm: Key 2024 Updates for Illinois Employers Include a Number of New Leave Obligations and More

Many thanks to our Franchise, Distribution & Global Brand Expansion colleague Will Woods for co-authoring this post.

On October 25, 2023 the National Labor Relations Board issued a final joint employer rule (accompanied by a fact sheet) making it easier for multiple companies to be deemed “joint employers” under the law. This legal classification can have profound consequence by making independent entities now liable for labor law violations as well as obligations to negotiate with unions.

The new standard casts a wider net for “joint-employer” status

Under the new rule, an entity may be considered a joint employer of a group of employees if the entity shares or codetermines one or more of the employees’ “essential terms and conditions of employment.” The Board defines the essential terms and conditions of employment as:

  1. wages, benefits, and other compensation;
  2. hours of work and scheduling;
  3. the assignment of duties to be performed;
  4. the supervision of the performance of duties;
  5. work rules and directions governing the manner, means, and methods of the performance of duties and the grounds for discipline;
  6. the tenure of employment, including hiring and discharge; and
  7. working conditions related to the safety and health of employees.

How the new rule dramatically shifts away from the 2020 rule

In issuing the final rule, the NLRB rescinded the prior 2020 joint employer rule (a remnant of the Trump-era Board), which provided that a business is a joint employer only if it both possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment-with “substantial” meaning control that is not exercised on a “sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis. ” (For more on the 2020 rule, see our prior blog here.) The 2020 rule’s higher threshold meant a lower likelihood that businesses would be considered joint employers. The new rule’s impact on employers could be wide-ranging, and particularly difficult for non-unionized employers who are not used to navigating typical union activity such as being required to show up at the bargaining table, handling unfair labor practice charges, or dealing with picketing by a vendors’ employees (which would have previously been considered an illegal secondary boycott).

No direct (or even exercised) control required

The new rule rejects the previous rule’s focus on “direct and immediate control.” Instead, now, indirect or reserved control is sufficient to establish joint employer status. Thus, if a company has contractual authority over certain employment terms but never acts on that authority, that may be enough to establish a joint employer relationship. The same goes for a company that exercises authority over another company’s workers through a “go-between” company or intermediary, or a company requiring a vendors’ employees to follow certain health and safety rules while on-premises. In these instances, liability under the National Labor Relations Act, including the requirement to negotiate with a union, could ensue.Continue Reading NLRB Announces Most Expansive Definition of Joint Employment Yet, With Potential Significant Implications for Franchisors, Staffing Agencies and More

The National Labor Relations Board has continued its recent spate of employee-friendly decisions with a new one that will require employers to think through work rules, policies and handbook provisions to determine whether they could–hypothetically, from an employee’s perspective–restrict an employee’s Section 7 rights. 

On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) issued a 3-1 split decision in Stericycle, Inc., bringing back and modifying a prior standard for assessing whether an employer’s facially neutral work rules and policies unlawfully “chill” an employee’s Section 7 rights. Under the new standard, the NLRB will peer through the lens of a “reasonable employee” (more on that below) to determine whether an employer’s work rules and policies have a tendency to restrict Section 7 rights. For employers, this means a complete reassessment of their workplace rules and policies–and the handbooks that those rules and policies are housed in.

The new standard: reasonable tendency to “chill” Section 7 rights, from the employee’s perspective

The new standard (which is the Board’s prior Lutheran Heritage standard, brought back to life and modified) requires the NLRB General Counsel to prove that a challenged work rule has a reasonable tendency to “chill” employees from exercising their Section 7 rights. (Quick reminder: Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” of the Act, including the right to form, join or assist labor unions, to bargain collectively and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining.)

How is this done? That’s the rub for employers.

As an initial matter, the Board will interpret the challenged work rule from the perspective of an employee who is (i) subject to the rule, (ii) economically dependent on the employer, and (iii) also contemplates engaging in a protected concerted activity.

In addition:

  • The employer’s intent in maintaining the rule in question is immaterial. (So even if the employer had no  intent to restrict an employee’s Section 7 rights when developing the work rule or policy–which we suspect will usually be the case–it isn’t material.)
  • The General Counsel will carry her burden if an employee (that same employee described above) could reasonably interpret the rule to have a coercive meaning–even if a contrary, non-coercive interpretation of the rule is also reasonable. All emphasis is ours here, to highlight that the General Counsel’s burden is extraordinarily low. If the General Counsel carries her burden, the challenged work rule is presumptively unlawful.
  • BUT, employers have a chance at rebutting the presumption. The presumption can be rebutted if the employer can prove that the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and that the employer cannot advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule. If the employer proves this, the work rule will be found lawful.

What does this mean for employers?

The Stericycle standard has the potential to render a multitude of employment policies and workplace rules unlawful, and will be applied retroactively. Employers should review existing (or new) employee work rules, policies, and handbook provisions to ensure:

  • They are tailored as narrowly as possible to advance the employer’s interest, and to refrain from restricting an employee’s Section 7 rights
  • They explicitly state employees have the right to engage in concerted activities under Section 7
  • Where necessary, they provide an explanation of how the rule or policy does not preclude employees from exercising their Section 7 rights
  • Where possible, they include a list of specific rights the employer is not intending to restrict. Talk to us for recommended language.

Continue Reading Handbook Review Takes on a New Meaning: NLRB Adopts “Employee-Friendly” Standard for Evaluating Workplace Rules

As forecasted in our recent blog Illinois Employer Midsummer “Roundup”: Eight to Know and Two to Watch, our two bills “to watch” are now law. On August 4, Governor Pritzker signed HB 2862 into law, effective immediately, imposing new obligations on employers who use temporary employees, including providing information on their regular employees’ compensation to staffing companies and documenting and keeping records of training provided to the staffing company employee.

And on August 11, Governor Pritzker signed HB 3129 into law, meaning Illinois employers with 15 or more employees have to include the “pay scale and benefits” in any job posting starting January 1, 2025.

We highlight a few key points of each new law below, and for more details, check out our Illinois Midsummer “Roundup” blog.Continue Reading Illinois Employers: Two Bills We Told You to Watch Are Now Law

Splitting the baby on 50 years of precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has clarified that employers must grant a religious accommodation request under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) unless the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [their] particular business.” On June

The Illinois Supreme Court just handed union employers with broad management rights clauses in their collective bargaining agreements (CBA) a win. On March 23, 2023 the Illinois Supreme Court affirmatively answered a certified question (Does Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempt BIPA claims asserted by bargaining unit employees covered by a collective

As predicted, Governor Pritzker signed the “Paid Leave for All Workers Act” into law on Monday, March 13. Accordingly, beginning January 1, 2024, Illinois employers must provide most employees with a minimum of 40 hours of paid leave per year to be used for any reason at all–not just for sick leave.

On February 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in McLaren Macomb holding that employers may not offer employees separation or severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In McLaren, a hospital furloughed 11 employees, presenting each with a severance agreement and general release that contained confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions. (See the exact provisions copied below.) The Board majority held that merely “proffering” a severance agreement containing unlawful confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions violated the NLRA because conditioning the receipt of benefits on the “forfeiture of statutory rights plainly has a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the exercise of those rights.”

At first blush, this may feel like a sweeping change requiring immediate action. However, it is important to consider this decision with a grain (or two) of salt, breathe and thoughtfully plan your next steps. The key points identified below are designed to help you think through a tailored approach for your organization¾there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Your approach will depend on the type of workforce you have, your risk tolerance and what you are trying to protect. We are standing by, ready to assist, should you need further guidance.

Key Points

  • For most private, nonunion employers, the risk of an unfair labor practice charge is relatively low. While it is absolutely true that the NLRA does indeed apply to most private sector employers, the NLRB and unions tend to focus more on unionized workplaces. (If you have a unionized or partially unionized workforce, the risk is higher but read on.)

Continue Reading You’ve Heard That The NLRB Restricted The Use of Confidentiality & Non-Disparagement Provisions In Separation Agreements. Here’s What Employers Need To Do About It.

Illinois employers, do you utilize any workforce monitoring or security measures, such as time clocks, that involve individuals’: 

  • Fingerprints
  • Retina or iris scans
  • Scans of hand or face geometry
  • Voiceprints
  • Biometric information (information based on the above that is used by the company to identify an individual)

If so, read ahead because the Illinois Supreme Court just decided that doing so, without strict compliance with the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), could be a multi-billion dollar mistake.

In Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (issued February 17, 2023), the Court held that a separate BIPA claim accrues each time a private entity scans or transmits an individual’s biometric identifier or information in violation of section 15(b) or 15(d) of BIPA–not just the first time. Employers subject to BIPA now have no margin of error, because noncompliance with sections 15(b) or 15(d) of BIPA could mean cost-prohibitive–even ruinous–damages for the company.Continue Reading BIPA Liability in the Billions? Illinois Employers Beware: Claims Accrue with EACH Separate Scan or Transmission

Employers will now have to contend with a five-year statute of limitations for all employee claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). On February 2, 2023, in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a five-year statute of limitations applies to all BIPA claims—even those that are tied to the publication of an individual’s data and could presumably be subject to a one-year limitations period “for publication of matter violating the right of privacy.” The Court held that the legislative intent and purpose of BIPA, and the fact that BIPA does not have its own statute of limitations, favor all BIPA claims being subject to the state’s “catchall” five-year limitations period.

What happened

Plaintiff Tims filed a class-action complaint against his former employer, Black Horse, alleging that Black Horse violated section 15(a) of BIPA (providing for the retention and deletion of biometric information), and sections 15(b) and 15(d) of BIPA (providing for the consensual collection and disclosure of biometric identifiers and biometric information). Specifically, Tims alleged that Black Horse required its employees to use a fingerprint authentication time clock, and that Black Horse violated BIPA because it (1) failed to institute, maintain, and adhere to a publicly available biometric information retention and destruction policy required under section 15(a); (2) failed to provide notice and to obtain employees’ consent when collecting their biometrics, in violation of section 15(b); and (3) disclosed or otherwise disseminated employees’ biometric information to third parties without consent in violation of section 15(d).

Black Horse moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely, arguing that it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in section 13-201 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code). Black Horse argued that claims brought under BIPA concern violations of privacy, therefore the one-year limitations period in section 13-201 governing actions for the “publication of matter violating the right of privacy” should apply to such BIPA claims.

The circuit court rejected Black Horse’s argument, and denied the motion to dismiss. In doing so, the court held that violations of all three sections of BIPA were subject to Illinois’ “catchall” five-year limitations period in section 13-205 of the Code.

The appellate court, however, distinguished the applicable statute of limitations under BIPA based on the type of violation alleged. It held that violations of section 15(c) (prohibiting the sale, lease, trade or other profit from biometric information) and 15(d) (prohibiting the disclosure, redisclosure or dissemination of biometric information) were subject to the one-year limitations period in section 13-201 of the Code, while violations of section 15(a) (requiring a written policy with a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometric information), 15(b) (requiring notice and the specific purpose and length of collection of biometric information prior to collection), and 15(e) (requiring confidentiality and protective measures in the storage and transmission of biometric information) were subject to the five-year “catchall” limitations period in section 13-205.Continue Reading One Limitations Period for All: Illinois Supreme Court Holds All Claims Under BIPA Have a Five-Year Statute of Limitations