Employment Law Chicago Blog

  • Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment on IHRA Employment Discrimination Claims

    On April 2, 2019, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, reversed the trial court's order of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer in an employment discrimination lawsuit under the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA"), in which the plaintiff-employee claimed that her employer unlawfully discriminated against her because of her sex, race, national origin, and age, and unlawfully retaliated against her for complaining about it.  Lau v. Abbott Laboratories, 2019 IL App (2d) 180456 (Second Dist. April 2, 2019).  The IHRA is an Illinois anti-discrimination statute that contains the same employee protections as the federal anti-discrimination statutes (as well as some additional protected classifications that are not covered by the federal laws).  Illinois courts interpreting the IHRA are guided by federal case law interpreting the federal anti-discrimination laws.  The same legal standards and proof paradigms apply.

  • Bright-Line Two-Year Rule for Noncompetition Agreements Reaffirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court

    On March 29, 2019, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, upheld the rule that continued employment for less than two years does not constitute adequate consideration to support noncompetition or nonsolicitation provisions contained in Illinois at-will employment contracts.  Axion RMS, Ltd. v. Booth, 2019 IL App (1st) 180724 (First Dist. March 29, 2019).  This is the so-called "two-year rule," established by the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, in its decision in Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 120327, which remains fluid and controversial, because the Illinois Supreme Court has not decided the issue.  Consequently, federal district court judges may, but are not required to follow the "two-year" rule when determining the enforceability of noncompetition or nonsolicitation agreements under Illinois law.  Federal judges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois have split on the issue--some follow the bright-line "two-year rule," while others determine the enforceability of employment restrictive covenants based upon the totality of the circumstances.

  • Successor Liability for Employment Discrimination Claims under Illinois Law

    On March 11, 2019, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, held that under Illinois law, a successor business entity may be liable for an employment discrimination claim against an employer that transferred its assets to the successor in order to avoid liability for the employment discrimination claim.  Illinois Department of Human Rights v. Oakridge Nursing & Rehab Center, et al.,  2019 IL App (1st) 170806, March 11, 2019.  The employee filed an age and disability discrimination charge (the "Charge") against his employer under the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA").  After the employer received notice of the Charge, it transferred substantially all of its assets to a related but separate business entity.  Subsequently, a judgment in the amount of $30,000 was awarded by the Illinois Human Rights Commission to the employee and against the employer, which the employer failed to pay.

  • 7th Circuit Explains the ADA Interactive Process to Identify a Reasonable Accommodation

    On March 6, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not err in its jury instruction about the legal consequences of an employee's failure to cooperate with her employer in identifying a reasonable accommodation.  Sansone v. Brennan, Postmaster General of the United States, No. 17-3534 & No. 17-3632 (7th Cir. March 6, 2019).  The plaintiff, a postal employee confined to a wheelchair, was for years provided by the Postal Service with a parking spot with room to deploy his van's wheelchair ramp, until it took that spot away and failed to provide him with a suitable replacement.  He filed a lawsuit against the Postal Service, alleging that it failed to accommodate his disability.  A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and he recovered compensatory damages, as well as back pay and front pay.  The Service appealed on various grounds, including a jury instruction that it claimed was erroneous regarding the required interactive process between an employer and employee to find a reasonable accommodation.

  • 7th Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment on Title VII Race and National Origin Discrimination Claims

    On February 22, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant-employer in a Title VII race and national origin discrimination lawsuit.  Silva v. State of Wisconsin, Department of Corrections, et al., No. 18-2561 (7th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019).  Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of the employee's race, sex, religion, color, or national origin.  The plaintiff claimed that his employer terminated his employment because of his race and national origin, in violation of Title VII.  As evidence of discrimination, the plaintiff raised disparate discipline and pretext.

  • Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer on Illinois Common Law Retaliatory Discharge Claim

    On February 20, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of a defendant-employer on an Illinois common law retaliatory discharge claim.  Walker v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Company, No. 18-2673 (7th Cir. Feb. 20, 2019).  The employer discharged the employee after he was involved in a physical altercation with another employee.  He sued the employer, alleging race discrimination under Title VII and retaliatory discharge under Illinois law.  The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on all claims.  On appeal, the plaintiff abandoned his Title VII racial discrimination claim.  The retaliatory discharge claim failed for lack of evidence of a causal connection between any protected activity and the plaintiff's discharge.


This blog is provided for general informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and shall not be relied upon for any particular matter. Reading, reviewing, or otherwise using the blog shall not create any attorney-client relationship.