Illinois Employment Laws for 2025
Illinois Human Rights Act Amendments
Period to File Complaints: On January 1, 2025, several amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”) will go into effect. Notably, the amendments more than double the time period for filing a charge of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. Complainants will now have 2 years from the date of the alleged violation – instead of the current 300 days – to file complaints with the Illinois Department of Human Rights.
Expanded Protected Classes: The amendments also add new protected classes to the IHRA.
Family Responsibilities: Under the amended Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against an employee, or prospective employee, based upon the employee’s “family responsibilities.” Family responsibilities include an employee’s actual or perceived responsibilities to provide personal care to a family member. Personal care includes:
- activities related to meeting a covered family member’s basic medical, hygiene, nutritional, or safety needs are met;
- providing transportation to a family member who is unable to meet such needs;
- time spent providing emotional support to a covered family member with a serious health condition who is receiving inpatient or home care.
Reproductive Health Decisions: Similarly, the IHRA will prohibit discrimination on the basis of “reproductive health decisions.” In doing so, Illinois joins several other jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination on this basis. Reproductive health decisions include a person’s decisions regarding contraception, fertility care, assisted reproductive technologies, miscarriage management care, healthcare related to the continuation and or termination of pregnancy, and any pre-, intra-, or postnatal care.

Illinois Equal Pay Act Amendments
The Illinois Equal Pay Act will require that employers with 15 or more employees disclose “pay scale and benefits” in all job postings. The mandatory disclosures must include the wage or salary (or the wage or salary range), along with a general description of benefits and other forms of compensation, such as bonuses, stock options, and other incentives the employer plans to offer for the position. These pay disclosure requirements apply only to jobs that:
- will be performed, at least partially, in Illinois; or
- will be performed outside of Illinois if the hired employee will report to a supervisor, office, or other work site located in Illinois.
Another critical aspect is the emphasis on transparency regarding internal promotional opportunities. Employers are required to announce, post, or otherwise make known all opportunities for promotion to current employees no later than 14 calendar days after making an external job posting for the same position. Employers must also maintain records of job postings, pay scales, benefits, and wages for each position for at least five years. (Seyfarth’s prior update on these changes is available here.)
Worker Freedom of Speech Act
Reflective of the increased efforts limiting employers’ ability to conduct “captive audience” meetings, the Worker Freedom of Speech Act will prohibit employers from threatening to take or taking any adverse employment actions against employees for the following reasons:
- declining to participate or attend an employer-sponsored meeting if the meeting is to communicate about religious or political matters;
- as a means of inducing an employee to attend or participate in a meeting about religious or political matters; and
- making a good faith report of a violation or suspected violation of the Act.
Among other topics, “political matters” includes the decision to join or support a labor organization.
If an employer violates the Act, the aggrieved employee has one year after the date of the alleged violation to bring a civil action. A prevailing employee may be awarded injunctive relief, reinstatement, back pay, reinstated benefits, including seniority, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs. The Illinois Department of Labor may also investigate alleged violations, and may recover up to $1,000 for each violation per affected employee.
Whistleblower Act Amendments
Amendments to the Whistleblower Act alter the definitions of several key statutory terms, including “adverse employment action,” which will include actions that “a reasonable employee would find materially adverse.” An action is materially adverse when it “could dissuade a reasonable worker from disclosing or threatening to disclose” certain information, including information concerning their employer’s activity, policy, or practice the employee believes violates or poses a “substantial and specific danger to employees, public health, or safety.”
It likewise includes and broadly defines “retaliatory actions” that employers are prohibited from engaging in. For instance, unlawful retaliation includes:
- taking action against employees who disclose or threaten to disclose information to any supervisor, principal officer, board member, or supervisor in an organization;
- contacting, threatening to contact, or otherwise reporting/threatening to report an employee’s suspected or actual citizenship or immigration status; or
- intentionally interfering with a former employee’s employment.
The amendments also include stricter penalties, providing aggrieved individuals with a private right of action in which they could recover up to $10,000 in liquidated damages as well as a $10,000 penalty, in addition to fees and costs. Likewise, the Attorney General is empowered to seek remedies under the Act and may request a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each repeat violation within a 5-year period.
Overall, the amendments expand employees’ statutory protections under the Act due to the broadly defined statutory language. However, the Act now expressly provides an additional defense for employers to defeat claims provided that the alleged retaliatory action was based solely on grounds other than the employee’s statutorily protected conduct.
Child Labor Law of 2024
The Child Labor Law of 2024 repealed the previous Illinois child labor law and covers minors under the age of 16. The law specifies the allowable work hours and times for minors, such as not working more than 18 hours while school is in session (down from 24 hours) or not working more than 40 when school is out of session, but also provides certain exceptions. The law further clarifies that civil and criminal penalties can be imposed for violations and requires employers to obtain and maintain on the premises an employment certificate authorizing a minor’s work. Other notable aspects of the new law include:
- ensuring all minors are supervised by an adult 21 years or older while the minors are working;
- minors 13 years of age or younger cannot work in any occupation at any workplace unless they satisfy an exemption under the Act;
- an expansion of prohibited occupations for minors to work in, such as in any cannabis shops, barber, cosmetology, esthetics, hair braiding, and nail technology services requiring a license, or any other occupation determined by the Director to be hazardous.
Personnel Records Review Act Amendment
The recent amendment impose new obligations on employers, including the method for requesting personnel records and the intervals in which requests may be made.
Request Requirements: Requests need to be made to a person responsible for maintaining the employer’s personnel records and must identify the records an employee is requesting. The employee must specify whether they are requesting to inspect, copy, or receive copies of the records; if they elect to request copies, they must specify whether they want electronic or hard copy formats.
What Can Be Requested: The Amendment expands the types of records an employee may request. This now includes:
- any employment-related contracts or agreements that the employer maintains are legally binding on the employee;
- any personnel documents used to determine an employee’s qualifications for benefits and compensation;
- any employee handbooks that the employer made available to the employee or that the employee acknowledged receiving;
- any written employer policies or procedures that the employer contends the employee was subject to and that concern qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, compensation, benefits, discharge, or other disciplinary action.
Additional Exception: The Amendment adds an exception to personnel records that must be disclosed, clarifying that the right to inspection does not apply to an “employer’s trade secrets, client lists, sales projections, and financial data.”
Wage Payment and Collection Act Amendment
Amendments to the Wage Payment and Collection Act change employers’ recordkeeping obligations. Employers will soon be required to retain copies of pay stubs for a minimum of three years after the date of payment, regardless of whether an employee’s employment ends during that period. Employers will also need to provide current or former employees with copies of their pay stubs within 21 days of a request. However, employers will not be required to approve more than two requests in a calendar year.
The amendments clarify the meaning of a “pay stub” under the Act, which includes “an itemized statement or statements reflecting an employee’s hours worked, rate of pay, overtime pay and overtime hours worked, gross wages earned, deductions made from the employee’s wages, and the total of wages and deductions year to date.”
For employers who provide electronic pay stubs that employees cannot access for a year following their separation, they must offer to provide, upon an employee’s separation of employment, a record of all pay stubs for the past year. Notably, employers must document this offer in writing, noting (1)the date the offer was made; and (2) the employee’s response.
Employers who fail to furnish a paystub or otherwise comply with these amendments will be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 per violation.
Right to Privacy in the Workplace Amendments
As we recently reported, Illinois’s amended Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act reaffirms that Illinois employers may voluntarily use E-Verify systems, provided that the employer follows the requirements outlined in the Act. There is no ban or restriction against the voluntary use of E-Verify in Illinois, though the amendments prohibit an employer from imposing work authorization verifications (or re-verifications) beyond existing federal requirements. Moreover, the amendments impose additional obligations upon employers in an effort to enhance worker protections.
Notice Requirements:
- Inspections: Come January 1, 2025, employers must inform employees if their Form I-9 documentation will be inspected. Specifically, employees must be notified of any inspection within 72 hours of receipt, and where appropriate, employee representatives should also be notified.
- Discrepancies Known to Employers: When an employer receives notification from a federal or state agency of a discrepancy as it relates to work authorization, employers must provide written notice of the issue to the employee. Notice should be given via hand-delivery if possible, or alternatively by mail and email within five business days. The notice must include:
- an explanation of the determination;
- the time period for the employee to notify the employer if they wish to contest the determination;
- the time and date of any meeting with the employer or with the inspecting entity; and
- notice that the employee has the right to representation.
- Discrepancies Made by Inspecting Entities: Employers must also notify employees of discrepancies or suspect document determinations made by inspecting entities, such as Homeland Security Investigations. Once the inspection is completed, employees should have an opportunity to resolve any verification discrepancies. Employers must notify the employee within 5 business days (or sooner if federal law or a collective bargaining agreement requires). The notification must be hand delivered. If hand delivery is not possible then notice must be sent by mail and email.
The Health Care Worker Background Check Act Amendments
Comprehensive Community Mental Health Centers certified by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) will now be subject to the Act’s requirements. Among other requirements, such employers must now terminate their employees if they are found to have:
- A disqualifying criminal conviction unless a waiver has been granted by the Illinois Department of Public Health;
- substantiated findings of physical or sexual abuse, neglect or financial exploitation;
- indicated findings of abuse or neglect reported by the DCFS Central Register/Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking System (CANTS) unless there is a waiver granted by DHS; or
- their name is listed on the Healthcare and Family Services (“HFS”) Office of the Inspector General Sanction List as not authorized for employment unless their employment is approved by HFS.
Non-Competes and Non-Solicitation Provisions
On August 9, 2024, Illinois declared non-compete and non-solicitation provisions entered into after January 1, 2025, as unenforceable if the provision is “likely to result in an increase in cost or difficulty for any veteran or first responder seeking mental health services.”
It also deemed all non-compete and non-solicitation provisions as “void and illegal” for any person employed in construction, regardless of the terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreement.
Changes to Armed Forces and Uniform Services Definition
Illinois expanded the definition of armed forces or uniformed services to specifically include members of the United States Space Force.
Next Steps for Employers: Employers should review existing applicable policies (including retention protocols) to ensure compliance with these Illinois updates, and train relevant HR, business, and management personnel on these new requirements as we head into 2025.
Posted in #mentalhealthmonth, #taxation, blog, cannabis, Chicago, constitution, cook county, Crime, Dolton, Elections, Health, health risk, Illinois, Illinois Pensions, illinois politics, infrastructure, law, Law Offices of Roy F McCampbell, legal services, liability, mental health, minimum wage, police, political satire, politics, Population, Pritzker, referendum, robert martwick, Roy F McCampbell Blog Ranked #4 on the 20 Best Political Satire Blogs and Websites in 2024 for 5th year in a Row, Roy F. McCampbell, Schiller Park, search warrant, security camera, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, Social Media, social security, Taxation, theft, tips, Top 30 Political Satire Blogs and Websites in 2021, transgender, unconstitutional, US Supreme Court, USCongress, vaccines, wages
Tagged #city politics, 2025, advocacy, Chicago, cook county, human rights, Illinois, new laws, politics, Pritzker, Roy F. McCampbell, Roy McCampbell
Leave a comment
Roy F McCampbell Blog Ranked #4 on the 20 Best Political Satire Blogs and Websites in 2024 for 5th year in a Row
Posted in blog, corruption, Drone, election fraud, Elections, gangs, Hey Jackass, Illinois, illinois politics, law, Law Offices of Roy F McCampbell, legal services, mental health, mental health days, politics, Pritzker, referendum, rioting, Roy F McCampbell Blog Ranked #4 on the 20 Best Political Satire Blogs and Websites in 2024 for 5th year in a Row, Roy F. McCampbell, SAFE-T Act, schillerparkblog, Social Media, top 30 blog, Top 30 Political Satire Blogs and Websites for 2023, Top 30 Political Satire Blogs and Websites in 2021, US Supreme Court, USCongress, vote, where’s the beef
Tagged blog, Illinois, politics, Roy F. McCampbell, Roy McCampbell, top blog
Leave a comment
Is it legal to shoot down a drone in Illinois?
Drones are becoming an increasingly common sight around the United States.
For some, drones are seen as fascinating and innovative tools. For others, they may raise concerns about privacy and safety.

In New Jersey, a surge in mysterious drone activity has recently captured widespread attention. While these drones haven’t posed any immediate threats to public safety, they’ve sparked enough unease for at least one state official to controversially suggest shooting them down.
The situation in New Jersey has fueled a broader question: Is it even legal to shoot down a drone?
For Illinois, here are some considerations to keep in mind.
Federal law
First and foremost, the FAA considers recreational unmanned aircraft systems like drones to fall within regulatory definitions of an aircraft.
The situation in New Jersey has fueled a broader question: Is it even legal to shoot down a drone?
For Illinois, here are some considerations to keep in mind.
- Discharging a firearm at occupied buildings
- Discharging on school property or within 1,000 feet of school grounds
- Discharging toward occupied vehicles
- Discharging toward public safety personnel
Even if the intent is to shoot down a drone, missing the target or causing the bullet to strike within one of these contexts could escalate the offense to aggravated discharge of a firearm.
Additionally, according to Illinois Statute 620 ILCS 5/42, the regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (including drones) is the responsibility of the state, provided it aligns with federal law. This reinforces the idea that any actions involving drones, including shooting at them, generally fall under the state’s tightly controlled regulated framework.
Shooting at a drone would not only disrupt the state’s lawful operation, but could interfere with efforts to ensure the “safe and efficient operation of the unmanned aircraft” as described in the statute. As a result, shooting at a drone in Illinois could lead to legal consequences under both state and federal law.
Furthermore
Even if a particular instance of shooting at a drone were to align with state and federal laws, local ordinances may impose additional regulations.
Context is also important. While rare, one might attempt to argue in self-defense in shooting at a drone if its actions could be interpreted as posing an immediate or credible threat to personal safety. However, such cases could face heavy scrutiny under law.
If you’re concerned with drone activity or feel compelled to shoot down a drone, the safest course of action is to resist the temptation, report concerns to local law enforcement or the FAA, and follow any further guidance on navigating the situation.
Posted in assault weapon, balloon, blog, Crime, Drone, Illinois, illinois politics, law, Law Offices of Roy F McCampbell, legal services, liability, pilot, politics, Pritzker, privacy, Roy F. McCampbell, state representative, theft, Transportation, unconstitutional, US Supreme Court, USCongress, Weather
Tagged Drone, Illinois, Is it legal to shoot down a drone in Illinois?, politics, Pritzker, Roy F. McCampbell, Roy McCampbell, shooting
Leave a comment
Supreme Court won’t stop school district from hiding gender transition from parents
The U.S. Supreme Court will allow a Wisconsin school district policy requiring teachers to hide the preferred gender identity of a trans-identified student from their parents to remain in effect.
In an orders list released Monday morning, the high court declined without comment to hear oral arguments in the case of Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District

The denial of appeal allows for a lower court decision in favor of the school district to remain in place that ruled that the parents’ group lacked standing, thus upholding a guidance on “gender identity support” for students to be implemented.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented against the denial of certiorari in comments included in the orders list, arguing that the relevant topics of the case warranted review.
“This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents’ ‘fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of’ their children … when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process,” wrote Alito.
“I am concerned that some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions.”
In 2021, the Eau Claire Area School District issued a document known as “Administrative Guidance for Gender Identity Support,” which sought to expand inclusion for trans-identified students.
This led to the school district later adopting a “Gender Support Plan” template that, among other things, allowed for school officials to exclude parents from any possible gender transition efforts on the student.
In September 2022, a group of local parents filed a complaint against the school district in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin under the unincorporated association Parents Protecting Our Children.
“ECASD requires a school and its staff to hold secret meetings with children to develop a ‘Student Gender Support Plan.’ At the same time, when interacting with the child’s parents, the Gender Identity Policy requires school officials, teachers, and administrators to continue using the child’s actual name and pronouns so the parents will not be alerted to the changes the school has made,” reads the complaint.
“The obvious purpose of such secrecy is to prevent parents from making critical decisions for their own minor children, from interfering with the school’s ideologically-driven activities, from caring for their children, or from freely practicing their religion. … The insidious invasion of parental rights at issue in this case cannot be tolerated by a free people who value liberty.”
Eau Claire Area School District Board of Education President Tim Nordin has defended the support program in comments to Wisconsin Public Radio in 2022 as necessary to help marginalized students.
“And for some students, in some situations, we have to understand the context of that and know that if they’re not safe and they trust an adult at the school, that might be the only adult that they have to trust in their lives,” said Nordin. “And that’s important to keeping children safe.”
In March, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the parents, upholding a lower court decision from last year siding with the school district and its support program.
The appeals court concluded in part that since the policy has not directly impacted any of the parents suing the school district as of the present, they lack the standing to lodge the complaint.
“No doubt Parents Protecting’s allegations punch with conviction and concern. But nowhere does the complaint allege that even one of the association’s members — any particular parent — has experienced an actual or imminent injury attributable to the Administrative Guidance or a Support Plan,” read the appeals court opinion.
“Parents Protecting’s expressions of worry and concern do not suffice to show that any parent has experienced actual injury or faces any imminent harm attributable to the Administrative Guidance or a Gender Support Plan. Maybe that day will come for a member parent. Maybe not. All we can say with certainty today is that Parents Protecting’s allegations fall short of establishing a Case or Controversy.”
Posted in #mentalhealthmonth, blog, Education, Elections, Illinois, illinois politics, Kwame Raoul, law, Law Offices of Roy F McCampbell, legal services, liability, mental health, politics, Pritzker, privacy, Religion, Rep Welch, robert martwick, Roy F. McCampbell, senator durbin, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, transgender, unconstitutional
Tagged Eau Claire Area School District, gender identity policy, hiding gender transition, politics, Roy F. McCampbell, US Supreme Court, Wisconsin
1 Comment









Cunningham Law Stifling Tow Companys’ Shady Practices Takes Effect January 1, 2025
Starting on Jan. 1, 2025, State Senator Bill Cunningham’s new law eliminates questionable fees towing companies charge and gets rid of shady shakedowns over lifesaving medical devices.
“I was furious to find out that car owners cannot recover their personal medical devices, like hearing aids, from their vehicles – even if their vehicle is stolen and later towed,” Cunningham said in news release. “Holding medical devices hostage is going way too far, and punitive tricks to maximize profits just give people another reason not to trust the towing industry.”
The legislation was brought to Cunningham, a Democrat who represents portions of Chicago and the Southwest Suburbs, from a constituent of the 18th District. The constituent’s vehicle was stolen from outside their residence in Chicago and was eventually located by police and towed in Alsip. The constituent did not find out where their vehicle was located until a week after it was recovered, receiving a letter in the mail from a suburban towing company that was holding the vehicle. When the constituent went to recover the vehicle, they were told they would have to pay a fee of $1,500, and were not allowed to recover a hearing aid from the vehicle until the fee was paid.
With Cunningham’s measure going into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, towing companies who already charge an arm and a leg to recover your vehicle after it was stolen from you, will no longer be allowed to charge storage fees on the vehicle while it’s at their compound. The law will also stifle questionable actions by towing companies, which include not returning personal medical property and textbooks until they get paid.
“Imagine if your vehicle was improperly towed and the towing company is shaking you down for a thousand bucks before they’ll give you your hearing aids,” said Cunningham. “I’m glad that we have ended this practice here in Illinois.”
Cunningham’s law, Public Act 103-0756, passed the Illinois Senate 59-0 in April of this year, the Illinois House 109-0 in May and was subsequently signed by the governor in August. The law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2025.
Share this: