Employment Law Chicago Blog

On March 18, 2020, the President signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ("FFCRA"), which creates two new emergency paid leave requirements in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic.  The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act ("EPSLA") entitles certain employees to take up to two weeks of paid sick leave.  The Emergency Family and Medical Leave Act ("EFMLEA") permits certain employees to take up to twelve weeks of expanded family and medical leave, ten of which are partially paid.  On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"), which amended certain provisions of the EPSLA and EFMLEA.

The FFCRA generally covers private employers with fewer than 500 employees and certain public agencies with one or more employees.

On March 18, 2020, the United States Senate passed the Omnibus Families First Coronavirus Response Act, that includes the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act ("EFMLEA") and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act ("EPSLA"), with which employers must immediately familiarize themselves.  The following is a summary of the key provisions of the EFMLEA and the EPSLA, which are expected to be signed into law by the President.

The Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act:

On December 4, 2019, the 7th Circuit held that the plain language of the Uniformed Service Members Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") covers full-time National Guard duty.  Mueller v. City of Joliet, No. 18-3609 (7th Cir. Dec. 4, 2019).  USERRA prohibits discrimination against those in "service in a uniformed service."  In this case, a Police Sergeant took a leave of absence to report for active duty in the Illinois National Guard Counterdrug Task Force.  When the Police Department placed him on unpaid leave, he resigned from his National Guard position and sued the City of Joliet and his supervisors for employment discrimination under USERRA.  The issue on appeal was whether USERRA protected his National Guard duty.

On December 3, 2019, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of an employer-defendant in a lawsuit in which an unsuccessful job applicant alleged that her rights under the Illinois Employee Credit Privacy Act ("Act") were violated when she was not hired as a result of an investigation of her credit history.  Rivera v. Commonwealth Edison Company, 2019 IL App (1st) 182676 (12/3/2019).  The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's actions of investigating her credit history in connection with a conditional offer of employment and refusing to hire her because of the results of the investigation violated the Act.

On November 15, 2019, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of an employer-defendant in a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  Ford v. Marion County Sheriff's Office, et al., No. 18-3217 (7th Cir. 11/15/2020).  The plaintiff worked as a deputy in the Marion County Sheriff's Office, until her hand was injured in a car accident while on duty.  After assigning her to light duty work for about a year, the Sheriff's Office informed her that she must either transfer to a permanent position with a pay cut or be terminated.  She accepted a new position as a jail visitation clerk.  The plaintiff alleged that subsequently, she suffered disability-based harassment by co-workers, refusals to accommodate her scheduling needs, and several discriminatory promotion denials.  She sued the Sheriff's Office for discriminatory employment practices under the ADA.

On November 12, 2019, the 7th Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff-employee who sued the defendant-employer for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").  Valdivia v. Township High School District 214, No. 19-1410 (7th Cir. 11/12/2019).  The plaintiff claimed that the defendant interfered with her rights under the FMLA by failing to provide her with notice or information about her right to take job-protected leave.  After a jury trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $12,000 in damages.  The plaintiff informed her supervisor that she was considering leaving for medical reasons.  She submitted a letter of resignation but shortly thereafter asked to rescind her resignation, which request was denied, resulting in the conclusion of her employment.