Reminder: Illinois Employers Must Complete Annual Anti-Harassment Training Requirement By End of the Year

Author: Becky Canary-King

Illinois’ Workplace Transparency Act requires that all employees complete sexual harassment prevention training on an annual basis. The law applies to all employees working in the state, including short-time, part-time, and remote employees. LP offers a remote training program that is compliant with state requirements for employees and managers. Alternatively, employers can conduct the training on their own using IDHR’s Training Program.

If you would like more information about LP’s program or would like to schedule a session, please contact: EmploymentLaw@lplegal.com.

Changes Coming to the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act to Close COVID loophole… in June 2022

Author: Becky Canary-King

The Illinois legislature has approved an amendment to the Health Care Right of Conscience Act (“HCRC”) which would limit employees’ ability to use the law to avoid workplace vaccination mandates.

HCRC, which was enacted in 1977, prohibits discrimination against individuals for their “conscientious refusal” to receive “any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.” The Act also makes it unlawful for employers to impose any burdens in terms or conditions of employment on, or to otherwise discriminate against, any applicant for the applicant’s refusal to receive any form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.

The original intent of the bill was to allow health care providers to refuse to provide contraceptives or abortion services if it violated their conscience. However, some individuals have argued that the broad language of HCRC provides a shield for employees to avoid COVID-19 testing and vaccination mandates.

The Amendment would add language stating that it is not a violation of the Act to institute and enforce COVID-19 requirements in the workplace and other institutions. The proposal does not interfere with employees’ right to receive reasonable accommodations for their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Governor J.B. Pritzker is expected to sign the amendment, which would go into effect in June 2022.

Illinois Law on Non-Competes and Non-Solicits is Changing January 1st. Are You Ready?

Author: Laura Friedel

Amendments to the Illinois Freedom to Work Act mean that for restrictive covenant agreements signed on or after January 1, 2022:

  • Employees making $45k or less per year can’t be subject to non-solicits and employees making $75k or less per year can’t be subject to non-competes
  • “Adequate Consideration” must be provided (either 2 years’ employment after signing or other adequate consideration)
  • Enforceability will depend on the particular facts at issue, including whether the employee was exposed to customer and employee relationships, the near-permanence of customer relationships, the acquisition, use and knowledge of confidential information, and the scope of the restriction (time, geography and scope of activity)
  • Blue-penciling (court revising provision to make it enforceable) is still permitted but courts need to consider a number of factors, including whether the restrictions as written were a good faith effort to protect legitimate business interests, and won’t wholly rewrite covenants
  • And perhaps most critically…. for the agreement to be enforceable, the employee must be given 14 days to consider the agreement and be told to consult with an attorney

These changes mean that companies who have their Illinois employees sign restrictive covenants must revise their templates. There are two ways we can help you get ready:

Option 1: Review your template agreements broadly to make sure that you’re meeting the new legal requirements and optimizing enforceability while protecting the company’s legitimate business interests.

If you’d like to consult with one of our Employment attorneys in this review, please click here and we’ll be in touch.

Option 2: If you’re not interested in doing a larger review, at a bare minimum, it’s critical that you add “magic language” to your templates saying that the employee has had 14 days to consider the agreement and has been advised to talk with an attorney before signing.

If you would like this language to drop into your standard agreements, we are happy to provide it to you free of charge – click here to request.

If you have any questions or would like to talk further about the best way for your company to comply with Illinois’ new requirements, please contact us at EmploymentLaw@lplegal.com – we’d love to help!

The Latest From Chicago: Anti-Retaliation, Fair Workweek, and Food Delivery Disclosures

While warm weather has finally hit Chicago, Mayor Lightfoot, the City Council and Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) have not taken a spring break. The below summarizes the latest ordinances, and regulations from the Windy City:

Anti-Retaliation Ordinance

The Chicago City Council passed the COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance last week, which prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for obeying a public health order requiring an employee to stay home due to coronavirus.

The Ordinance prohibits employers from demoting or terminating a Covered Employee for obeying an order issued by the Mayor, the Governor of Illinois, the Chicago Department of Public Health, or, in the case of (2), (3), and (4) below, a treating healthcare provider, requiring the Covered Employee to:

  • Stay at home to minimize the transmission of COVID-19;
  • Remain at home while experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or sick with COVID-19;
  • Obey a quarantine order issued to the Covered Employee;
  • Obey an isolation order issued to the Covered Employee; and
  • Obey an order issued by the Commissioner of Health regarding the duties
  • of hospitals and other congregate facilities

Employees subject to demotion or termination may recover reinstatement, damages equal to three times the full amount of wages that would have been owed had the retaliatory action not taken place, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees. Violations may also lead to fines of up to $1,000 per offense per day.

The ordinance is effective immediately.

Fair Workweek Ordinance

Chicago’s Fair Workweek Ordinance is set to take effect on July 1, 2020. Ahead of the effective date, the BACP has issued rules for implementing the ordinance, and a supplemental rule for implementation during the pandemic.

The Ordinance requires covered employers to post work schedules at least 10 days in advance, and provide additional pay if work schedules are changed without advanced notice. However, the Ordinance creates an exception where the work schedule change is “because of” a pandemic. BACP’s supplemental rule clarifies that the COVID-19 outbreak qualifies as a “pandemic” for the purposes of this exception, and will remain a “pandemic” until the Mayor’s Executive Order declaring a state of emergency is repealed.    

However, a work schedule change will be considered “because” of the pandemic only when the pandemic causes the employer to materially change its operating hours, operating plan, or the goods or services provided by the employer, resulting in the work schedule change. Further, the exception applies only to the work schedule during which the change occurs, and the work schedule immediately following.

Additionally, while the substantive requirements of the Ordinance will still go into effect on July 1, 2020 and may still be enforced by the City, individual employees will not be allowed to file lawsuits for violations of the ordinance occurring before January 1, 2021.

New Rules for Third Party Food Delivery Companies

Mayor Lightfoot and the BACP announced new rules earlier this month for third-party food delivery companies to increase transparency and fair competition. Effective Friday, May 22nd, all third-party delivery companies must disclose the following to customers, in a “clear and conspicuous manner”:

  • the menu price of the food;
  • any sales or other tax applied to the transaction;
  • any delivery charge or service fee, imposed on or collected from the customer by the third-party food delivery service or by the covered establishment, in addition to the menu price of the food;
  • any tip that will be paid to the person delivering the food, and not to the third-party food delivery service, to be added into the transaction when it occurs, and
  • any commission associated with the transaction.

The disclosure requirements apply to all websites, mobile applications or other internet services that offer or arrange the sale of food or beverages by a restaurant, bar or other food-serving establishments. The measure is intended to promote transparency and fair competition, as many restaurants are increasing relying on third-party delivery services to stay afloat during the pandemic.

While the rules were promulgated in response to the pandemic, these new rules will be in place permanently.

Guidance for Restaurants Applying COVID Surcharges

The City of Chicago issued a guidance for restaurants charging COVID-related surcharges to customers, reminding restaurants that the City’s restaurant tax is .50%, and any surcharge customers are required to pay is considered taxable and should be included in the basis upon which the restaurant tax is calculated. Additionally, a COVID surcharge is not a tax and should not be designated as such on any price list or invoice.

Illinois Workers’ Compensation Emergency Rules Rescinded

As we previously reported, in April, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission enacted emergency rules creating a presumption that employees of essential business that contract coronavirus were exposed in the workplace for purposes of workers’ compensation liability.

Business groups immediately challenged the change, and a judge temporarily blocked enforcement of the emergency rules, saying that the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission exceeded its authority when it enacted the rules.

Now, the emergency rules have been rescinded, but both Governor Pritzker and the Commission have indicated that they will renew their efforts to ensure that workers’ compensation is available to employees who contract COVID-19.

Employers should continue to follow CDC and OHSA guidance to maintain a safe working environment for all employees or in planning for reopening.

Illinois Passes Workplace Transparency Act and Other Legislative Changes Intended to Fight Workplace Harassment and Discrimination

In the latest of a series of major legislative development affecting Illinois employers, Governor Pritzker signed Public Law 101-0221 on August 9, 2019, which includes the new Workplace Transparency Act (the “WTA”) and also makes changes to the Illinois Human Rights Act and various other current laws. The WTA is an outgrowth of the #metoo movement and is intended to prevent harassment in the workplace and ensure incidents of harassment and discrimination are not kept buried from public disclosure, as allegedly happened for many years in the Harvey Weinstein situation. Most provisions of Public Law 101—0221 go into effect on January 1, 2020. The new legislation will impact what sorts of agreements can be put in place with employees, prospective employees, and former employees, how disputes relating to harassment and discrimination can be resolved, the training that must be conducted by employers, and what information about judgments and settlements must be disclosed to the government.

Restrictions on Agreements with Employees, Prospective Employees, and Former Employees

The WTA prohibits “[a]ny agreement, clause, covenant or waiver that is a unilateral condition of employment or continued employment” and that:

  • has the purpose or effect of “preventing an employee or prospective employee from making truthful statements or disclosures about alleged unlawful employment practices” or
  • “requires the employee or prospective employee to waive, arbitrate, or otherwise diminish any existing or future claim, right, or benefit related to an unlawful employment practice to which the employee or prospective employee would otherwise be entitled under any provision of State or federal law….”

The WTA clearly is targeting, in the first place, confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions that are imposed unilaterally by an employer and that purport to bar an employee from disclosing unlawful employment practices and, in the second place, mandatory arbitration agreements, jury waivers, and similar terms imposed unilaterally by employers that make it more difficult for employees to vindicate their rights.

The attempt to restrict the use of arbitration agreements by employers may run afoul of federal law which contains an expressed policy in support of such agreements as stated in the Federal Arbitration Act. This potential conflict between State and federal law likely will be sorted out in future litigation.

Certain Mutual Employment Agreements Qualify for Different Treatment

The WTA sets up two exceptions to the general prohibitions described above. First, an employer is permitted to enter into an agreement that would otherwise violate the WTA if the agreement “is a mutual condition of employment,” is in writing, is supported by “actual, knowing, and bargained-for consideration from both parties,” and does not prevent an employee or prospective employee from: (1) reporting good faith allegations of unlawful employment practices to appropriate federal, State, or local agencies enforcing discrimination laws, (2) reporting good faith allegations of criminal conduct to appropriate federal, State, or local officials, (3) participating in a proceeding enforcing discrimination laws, (4) making any truthful statements or disclosures required by law, regulation, or legal process, or (5) requesting or receiving confidential legal advice.

Settlement and Termination Agreements Also are Treated Differently

The second exception under the WTA involves “valid and enforceable settlement or termination” agreements that include promises of confidentiality related to alleged unlawful employment practices. To qualify for the exception, the following criteria must be met:

  1. “[C]onfidentiality is the documented preference of the employee, prospective employee, or former employee and is mutually beneficial to both parties”;
  2. The employer must provide notice, in writing, of the employee, prospective employee, or former employee’s right to have an attorney review the agreement;
  3. There must be valid, bargained for consideration “in exchange for the confidentiality”;
  4. There must not be a waiver of claims that accrue after the date of the agreement;
  5. The employee, prospective employee, or former employee must be given 21 days to review the agreement; and
  6. “[U]nless knowingly and voluntarily waived,” the employee, prospective employee, or former employee must be given 7 days to revoke the agreement.

It is worth noting that the WTA makes clear that employers can still require individuals to keep allegations of unlawful conduct confidential if they receive complaints or investigate them as part of their job or if they are a participant in an investigation.

New Training Requirements

Also part of Public Law 101-0221, a new provision has been added to the Illinois Human Rights Act that will require employers to provide annual sexual harassment prevention training to employees. The Illinois Department of Human Rights has been directed to produce a model training program, and employers will be able either to use that model program or one of their own that equals or exceeds the minimum standards. Beyond describing the subjects that must be part of the program, the legislation gives few details about how long the training must be, whether it must be participatory, and whether it must be in-person. One helpful part of the legislation is that employers who do not comply with the training requirement will be given a thirty-day period after being cited during which they can provide the training.

Expansion of IDHR Coverage

Besides the new training provision described above, Public Law 101-0221 also expands the Illinois Human Rights Act by adding protection based on perceived membership in a protected class, adding a new definition of “harassment,” providing protection from harassment for nonemployees (i.e., contractors and consultants) who provide services to an employer, and making clear that an employer’s “work environment” is not limited to the physical location to which an employee is assigned. The legislation also makes clear that an employer will not be liable for the harassment carried out by non-managers and non-supervisory personnel unless the employer becomes aware of the conduct and fails to take reasonable corrective measures. This mirrors the treatment under federal law for non-managers and non-supervisory personnel.

New Reporting Requirements

Beginning in July of 2020, employers who have experienced an adverse judgment involving sexual harassment or workplace discrimination in the prior calendar year will be required to make certain reports to the Illinois Department of Human Rights. The Department of Human Rights also will have expanded powers to request settlement information as part of an investigation of a charge. Information shared with the Department of Human Rights will not be subject to Illinois’ FOIA law.

Expansion of VESSA

Finally, Public Law 101-0221 also amended Illinois Victims’ Economic Security and Safety Act (VESSA). This statute protects victims of sexual and domestic violence and certain family and household members from discrimination and gives them certain leave and accommodation rights. With the changes recently enacted, VESSA now also protects victims of gender violence, which is defined as “(A) one or more acts of violence or aggression satisfying the elements of any criminal offense under the laws of this State that are committed, at least in part, on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sex or gender, regardless of whether the acts resulted in criminal charges, prosecution, or conviction; (B) a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions satisfying the elements of any criminal offense under the laws of this State, regardless of whether the intrusion or invasion resulted in criminal charges, prosecution, or conviction; or (C) a threat of an act described in item (A) or (B) causing a realistic apprehension that the originator of the threat will commit the act.”

What Should Illinois Employers Do Now?

Faced with the above provisions, Illinois employers likely will want to take several steps.

First, because it will be difficult to show that an agreement is “mutual” for purposes of the WTA, employers will want to assume that most agreements signed by employees as a standard condition of their employment are going to be “unilateral.” For these agreements, the safest route will be to carve out an employee’s right to make truthful statements or disclosures about unlawful employment practices and to remove any provisions that might diminish an employee’s right to pursue employment-related claims.

Second, for certain agreements with high-level executives that are truly the product of bargaining and for settlement and termination agreements, to the extent terms are included that otherwise would violate the WTA, employers will want to make sure that the agreements contain appropriate recitations demonstrating that one of the exceptions in the statute would be applicable.

Third, employers will want to make sure they revise their policies and handbooks to reflect the protection of nonemployees from harassment and the changes to VESSA.

Fourth, employers will want to begin planning to conduct annual anti-harassment and discrimination training.

To the extent you have more questions about the WTA and the other provisions of Public Law 101-0221, you should feel free to contact us.

 

Preparing for Legalized Marijuana in Illinois

This summer, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed into law the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (the “Cannabis Act”), which takes effect January 1, 2020. Employers may want to take a look at their policies and procedures as they relate to drug testing their candidates and employees and how they discipline employees who test positive for cannabis.

The Cannabis Act provides that individuals who are 21 years of age or older may lawfully possess, consume, use, purchase, obtain, and transport cannabis for personal use. Notably, however, cannabis continues to be illegal under federal law. While the Cannabis Act legalizes recreational marijuana use, it explicitly allows employers to do the following in order to maintain a safe drug-free workplace:

  • Enforce zero-tolerance or drug-free workplace policies;
  • Implement and enforce employment policies concerning drug testing, smoking, consumption, storage, or use of cannabis in the workplace or while on call, provided that the policy is applied in a non-discriminatory manner; and
  • Prohibit employees from being under the influence or using cannabis in the workplace (this applies to the employer’s premises, including any building, real property, and parking area under the control of the employer, as well as employer vehicles), while performing job duties or while on-call.

Despite these explicitly employer-friendly provisions, the Cannabis Act makes disciplining employees for marijuana-use tricky. Specifically, before disciplining an employee that is perceived to be under the influence or impaired by cannabis, the Cannabis Act states employers must have a “good faith belief that the employee manifests specific, articulable symptoms while working that decrease or lessen the employee’s job performance.”  The Cannabis Act specifies this burden may be met by changes in the employee’s speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, or negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery, disregard for the safety of the employee or others, or involvement in any accident that results in serious damage to equipment or property, disruption of a production or manufacturing process, or carelessness that results in an injury to the employee or others. The Cannabis Act also requires that employers “afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to contest the basis of the determination.

Perhaps the most complex portion of the Cannabis Act is that it amends the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act (“IRPWA”), which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for their off-duty (legal) behavior. Now, pursuant to the Cannabis Act’s amendment, those behaviors include use of cannabis. Under the IRPWA, employees may file a private right of action and be entitled to not only damages, but also recovery for statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs, where an employer takes adverse action for the employee’s off-duty and off-premise cannabis use.

The reason this poses a particular challenge for employers is because there are no existing drug tests that can test when someone last used marijuana. For example, a positive marijuana test may only mean that the employee used marijuana while off-duty and off-premises days (or weeks) ago – not that the employee used (or is impaired) while at work. Or it could mean the employee is still impaired. There’s no way to know solely based off a cannabis test.

Best Practices for Employers to Put into Effect Now

In preparation, employers should consider taking the following actions now:

  • Review existing drug testing policies, update policies accordingly and train managers and supervisors regarding any policy changes.
  • Develop discipline policies specifically for cannabis use and train managers and supervisors on the appropriate grounds for discipline and procedural requirements for discipline.
  • Develop specific procedures for documenting concerns that an employee is under the influence of cannabis.
  • Train managers and supervisors on the specific cannabis use/impairment symptoms referenced in the Cannabis Act and how to document those observations in order to provide evidentiary support of “good faith.”
  • Review/revise policies with respect to pre-employment applicant drug testing.

Illinois Strengthens Equal Pay Protections

Illinois has joined the growing list of states implementing requirements intended to avoid pay discrimination. These requirements, which are effective September 29, 2019, include a new salary history ban, a lessening of the evidentiary burden to prove pay discrimination, strengthened anti-retaliation provisions, and additional damages available to employees.  Employers need to act quickly to ensure that candidates aren’t asked about compensation history, and otherwise comply with these new standards.

The 2019 Amendments to the Illinois Equal Pay Act prohibit Illinois employers from:

  • Screening job applicants based on their salary history
  • Requesting or requiring salary history
  • Otherwise requesting or requiring applicable to disclose salary history information
  • Seeking an applicant’s salary history information from current or former employers (unless it is public record).
  • Considering or relying on compensation history voluntarily provided (without prompting) in deciding whether to offer employment , in making an offer of compensation, or in determining future compensation.

The Amendments make clear that employers may engage in discussions with applicants about their expectations with respect to compensation and benefits, but it’s critical that those conversations are forward – not historically – focused.

The amended IL EPA also makes it easier for employees to prove claims of pay discrimination – both because it expands the group of individuals the employee can compare herself to in making her claim, and because it narrows the grounds on which an employer can justify a difference in pay.

Finally, the Amendments beef up the Illinois Equal Pay Act’s retaliation provisions.  The IL EPA previously provided that Illinois employers should not interfere with, restrain or retaliate against employees who wish to inquire about, disclose, compare or discuss their wages or the wages of other employees.  The Amendments go even further though – prohibiting employers from requiring an employee to sign an agreement that would prohibit them from disclosing or discussing their pay information.

Employees bringing claims under the IL Equal Pay Act will still have five years to bring their claims, and they will still be entitled to recover the entire amount of any underpayment with interest.  But under the Amendments, they will now also have the opportunity to seek compensatory damages in certain situations, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.

Illinois employers need to take immediate action to ensure that those involved in the hiring process do not inadvertently violate the new salary history ban.  We recommend implementing a policy that requires that only one or two set individuals are authorized to discuss money with candidates, and that those individuals be trained to only ask about expectations, not salary history.  In addition, in light of the soon-to-be reduced standards for proving pay discrimination, Illinois employers should consider conducting a self-audit to identify – and resolve – any pay inequality before a claim arises.

Paid Sick Leave Coming in Q3

We’re only a few days into Q2, but we wanted to make sure that you’re prepared for a significant legal change that is effective at the beginning of Q3.  Starting July 1st, employees who work in Cook County will have a right to paid sick leave under the Cook County Earned Sick Leave Ordinance, the Chicago Paid Sick Leave Ordinance or both. 

On their surface, the requirements of the Ordinances seem pretty straightforward, leaving many companies to believe that their current PTO or sick leave policy meets the new standards.  However, most of the policies we’ve reviewed to date don’t meet all of the new standards.  This is largely because the Ordinances:

  • Apply to all employees – including part-time employees – who work at least 80 hours in any 120 day period.
  • Allow the employee to carryover up to 20 hours of paid sick leave into the next year (up to 60 for employers that are covered by the FMLA).
  • Require that paid sick leave may be used not just for the employee or a family member’s illness or injury, but also to seek medical care or to care for a family member, in the event that the employee or a family member is the victim of domestic violence, or in the event that the workplace or the employee’s child’s school or place of care is closed due to a public health emergency.
  • Provide that an employer can’t require a note unless the employee is out for more than 3 consecutive days or more.
  • Put limitations on the notice employers can require from employees, including allowing employees to provide last minute notice by phone, email or text.

There are also a couple provisions in the Ordinances that help employers – including capping accrual at 40 hours per year, capping use at 40 or 60 hours per year (depending on the size of the employer and the reason for leave), and not requiring payout on termination.  However, to take advantage of these employer-friendly provisions, it’s important to reflect them in your policy. 

Both Ordinances provide that employees who don’t receive the paid sick time the Ordinances require can file suit and collect triple damages.  We expect Plaintiffs’ attorneys to be out in force looking for potential class actions, so it is important that every company that employs workers in Cook County have their policy reviewed in advance of the July 1st implementation deadline.  Because of the number of sick leave policies we’ve already seen, we are able to review current policies and prepare compliant policies efficiently, on a flat fee basis.

Labor & Employment Practice Group Leader Laura Friedel is available for questions about how these ordinances might affect your company’s policies.