The Illinois General Assembly has unanimously passed a bill that will significantly affect the legality of post-employment non-competition and non-solicitation agreements between employers and their Illinois employees entered into after Jan. 1, 2022. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker is expected to sign the bill into law. The bill, Amendment 1 to SB 672, amends the
2020 saw significant changes in Illinois employment law, and the trend continues in 2021. Among the 2020 changes were Illinois Human Rights Act amendments requiring Illinois employers to conduct annual sexual harassment awareness training of employees and to provide annual reporting of discrimination charges filed against them.
As companies grow and expand into multiple U.S. states, particularly in our increasingly knowledge and relationship-based economy, determining the applicable law for companywide restrictive covenants can be puzzling. Determining which law applies can make the difference between enforcement or the inability to enforce the covenants.
In Cardoni et al. v. Prosperity Bank (Case Nos. 14-20682
With Adam Braun
When the Illinois General Assembly adjourned the 2013 Spring Session on May 31st, it set the stage for substantial changes to Illinois employment law. The General Assembly sent six employment law related bills to Governor Pat Quinn while leaving one major piece of unfinished business on its agenda. Illinois employers should be
On May 15, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued revised guidance for employers with respect to employees with epilepsy, cancer, diabetes, and intellectual disabilities. The guidance is contained in the EEOC publication “Disability Discrimination: The Questions and Answers Series,” and is posted on the EEOC’s website, http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm. The recommendations address the expanded
In Rodgers v. White (No. 10-3916), decided on September 2nd, the Seventh Circuit reached the unusual result of allowing a plaintiff to use his supervisor as a comparator in a comparative discipline case alleging race discrimination. The result is important because the Seventh Circuit had previously indicated in several cases that supervisors are typically poor