Photo of James A. Burns, Jr.

James A. Burns, Jr.

Subscribe to James A. Burns, Jr.'s Posts

A reminder to all employers with any employees who work in Chicago or elsewhere in Cook County, Illinois: ordinances mandating that you provide paid sick leave to employees who work in Chicago or Cook County take effect July 1, 2017.

As we previously reported here, under the Chicago Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (and the almost identical Cook County Earned Sick Leave Ordinance), employers must begin awarding every employee who works in Chicago or Cook County one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked, up to at least 40 hours of paid sick leave per year (plus up to at least 20 unused rollover hours from the previous year). Nearly any employee who works at least 80 hours within any 120-day period in either jurisdiction qualifies, but employers may require the employee to wait up to 180 days after starting employment before they may use accrued paid sick leave.  Employers can avoid the carryover and accrual requirements by “frontloading” their employees with equal or greater leave at the start of each calendar or benefit year.

Recently released interpretative rules from the City and County have added the following clarifications:

  • According to the City’s rules, “[i]n the case of a conflict between the [City’s] Ordinance and the Cook County Earned Sick Leave Ordinance, the [City’s] Ordinance shall prevail within the City.”
  • After the first year of employment, an employee may use a maximum of 60 hours of paid sick leave (unless the employer has a more generous policy)
  • An employee may use paid sick leave in one-hour increments, unless the employer establishes and disseminates a written minimum-use policy
  • An employer is not required to allow paid sick leave use while the employee is on disciplinary leave
  • Paid sick leave must be paid no later than the next regular payroll period beginning after the leave was used
  • The following employees are not covered under either ordinance:
    • Employees working in construction covered by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”)
    • Employees covered by a CBA entered into before July 1, 2017
    • Employees covered by a CBA entered into on or after July 1, 2017, and that explicitly waives their rights under the ordinance(s)
  • Immigration status does not affect an employee’s rights under either ordinance
  • A private right of action is possible under both ordinances

Continue Reading Chicago-Area Employers: Paid Sick Leave Begins July 1

On April 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit broke new legal ground by ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment, also forbids sexual orientation discrimination.  Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, No. 15-1720 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc). …

Starting January 1, 2017, the new Illinois Freedom to Work Act will prohibit private sector employers from entering into covenants not-to-compete with “low-wage employees” who work in the state, and render unenforceable any such restrictions that are entered into on or after that date.

The Act defines a “low-wage employee” as one who earns the greater of $13.00 per hour or the minimum wage required by applicable federal, state, or local law. As of January 1, 2017, that would include any private sector employee in Illinois who is paid $13.00 per hour or less.

The Act defines a “covenant not to compete” as an agreement between an employer and a low-wage employee entered into on or after January 1, 2017, that restricts the employee from performing any work for another employer for a specified period of time, any work in a specified geographical area, or work for another employer that is similar to the employee’s work for the employer that is a party to the agreement. The Act thus appears limited to non-competes rather than barring covenants not to solicit customers or employees, or confidentiality agreements.
Continue Reading Illinois Bans Noncompetes for Low-Wage Employees

In the past several weeks, Pokémon Go has taken the world, and many workplaces, by storm. If you’re concerned about reducing the negative impact that this game may be having on your employees’ productivity – and, more importantly, their safety – here are five steps you can take:

1. Make sure that your corporate policies for use of email, internet, and electronic devices are up to date. The policies should state the parameters and limitations regarding the use of these tools for personal matters. If your company allows for reasonable use of internet and personal email, the policy should state that an employee’s personal activity should not interfere with his or her job responsibilities. Ideally, a policy will also include a non-exhaustive list of sites, apps, games, and other programs that employees should not access at work. Examples, such as Pokémon Go, can also be listed. A specific social media policy that limits personal use of sites such as Facebook and Instagram should be included, as well. The policy should also limit personal use of mobile phones during work hours. In drafting or revising any policies, be sure that you take into account the recent decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). These decisions strike down common personnel policies on the grounds that they could lead reasonable employees to believe they may face discipline for engaging in protected activity with or on behalf of one or more co-workers relating to employees’ wages, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment.Continue Reading Five Tips for Handling Pokémon Go in the Workplace

The Chicago City Council today voted unanimously in favor of an ordinance that will require every non-construction employer to provide its employees who work in the city with 40 hours of paid sick time per year. Chicago thus joins more than a dozen other states and cities around the country, including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, the District of Columbia, and several cities in New Jersey, in requiring employers to grant employees paid sick days. The ordinance will go into effect July 1, 2017.

The following describes key provisions of the ordinance:Continue Reading Chicago Employers Must Grant Paid Sick Time: FAQ

This post was also written by Megan E. Farrell.

On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that a job applicant can establish religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 without proof that the employer had “actual knowledge” of the applicant’s need for an accommodation; instead, the applicant “need only show that his [or her] need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision” (emphasis added). Writing for eight of the Court’s nine Justices, Justice Scalia explained that employers “may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2015).Continue Reading EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch: Do You Need to Ask Applicants Whether They Require Religious Accommodation?

This post was also written by Kimberly M. Mitchell.

As we previously reported, as of January 1, 2015, all Illinois employers are subject to new amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act that require employers to reasonably accommodate employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, and to post a new notice published by…

This post was also written by Kimberly M. Mitchell.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn just signed legislation requiring Illinois employers to provide reasonable accommodation to employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and to take steps to prevent and address sexual harassment against unpaid interns as well as employees. These amendments to the Illinois…

James A. Burns, Jr. has posted a new article on Forbes.com

Illinois has joined the quickly growing number of states and cities (including Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Baltimore, Newark and Buffalo) that have passed “ban the box” legislation—so named based on the box found on most employment applications asking whether…