Photo of Matthew C. Luzadder

Last week, the Chicago City Council passed the Chicago Fair Workweek Ordinance (“the Ordinance”), which requires employers to give workers early notice of their schedules or face penalties if they change shifts without sufficient notice.  For employers, this may present an administrative challenge, but employers should be prepared to address this national trend.  New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, Oregon, and the District of Columbia have already enacted laws to protect worker schedules and limit employer discretion in adjusting employee schedules. Mayor Lightfoot is expected to formally sign the bill and it will subsequently be effective July 1, 2020. The highlights follow:

Who’s Covered?

  • The Ordinance requires employers in any “Covered Industry,” which includes building services, healthcare, hotels, manufacturing, retail, or warehouse services with more than 100 employees globally (250 in the case of non-profits) with at least 50 covered employees, to provide certain protection around the scheduling of an employee’s shifts.
  • For restaurants, the law is applicable for businesses with 30 locations globally and at least 250 employees.
  • The Ordinance applies to all employees, within Covered Industries, who make less than $26 per hour or receive an annual salary of under $50,000.


Continue Reading

On June 25, 2019, Governor Jay B. Pritzker signed the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (HR1438) (“Cannabis Act”) into law. When the law goes into effect on January 1, 2020, Illinois will be the second largest state (after California) to allow the use and possession of recreational cannabis for all citizens over age 21. Notably, Illinois is the first state to legalize recreational cannabis use through legislative action, rather than ballot initiative.
Businesses in Illinois should have one simple question in mind: what can we do about drug testing now that employees have the right to use cannabis under state law? Can these employers still prohibit their employees from using cannabis when they are at work? Can these employers still prohibit their employees from partaking in cannabis when they are not at work?
The answer is, of course, it depends. Unfortunately, the Cannabis Act provides conflicting language on precisely what employers can do in terms of drug testing for employees.


Continue Reading

On June 2, 2019, the Illinois General Assembly passed SB75, a legislative response to the #MeToo movement. Governor J. B. Pritzker is expected to sign SB75 soon, as it aligns with his campaign promise to tackle sexual harassment.

SB75 creates three laws and amends a number of others to increase protection for employees in Illinois who are victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual violence, and domestic and gender-based violence. Employers should be aware of the following highlights:


Continue Reading

Medical marijuana occupies a gray space within the United States. Marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law and is included on the Drug Enforcement Administrations’ Schedule I, along with heroin and LSD. The drugs on this schedule are considered to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” In spite of the federal prohibition, thirty states have passed some form of legislation allowing for the medical use of marijuana.

This conflict between state and federal law may cause employers confusion—especially in states with expansive disability protections. For example, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) which provides extensive protections for individuals with disabilities. The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (“NJCUMMA”) supplements the NJLAD by stipulating that employees using marijuana for a medicinal purpose are considered to have a disability and such use is protected. These protections, of course, do not force employers to allow employees to use marijuana at work but do pose a dilemma when it comes to workplace drug testing. Many companies require employees to pass drug tests for federally prohibited narcotics. However, the NJLAD requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled individuals. Since the NJCUMMA classifies medical marijuana users as disabled, is a drug test a violation of their accommodations?
Continue Reading

Take action now to meet the new policy, training, and certification requirements.

Beginning January 1, 2018, Illinois lobbyists and their employers must comply with new sexual harassment compliance rules. Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law Public Act 100-0554 (the Act) to combat sexual harassment in the state legislature. The Act imposes sweeping new requirements on lobbyists even if they are the victims. Press reports detail a number of allegations involving legislators, including some made by lobbyists and activists. One allegation forced the Senate majority leader to step-down from his post. In addition, hundreds of women signed an open letter to bring attention to this pattern of abuse in the state capitol. It appears that discussion of sexual harassment will continue into 2018.

Before the Act, only the Legislative Inspector General could investigate allegations of legislators’ sexual misconduct. That position, however, has been vacant since 2014. Notably, more than two dozen allegations sat uninvestigated on an empty desk. Now, state law authorizes the Secretary of State Inspector General to investigate allegations and the State Executive Ethics Commission to enforce the rules. The legislature, in policing itself, requires lobbyist employers to follow much the same requirements as state agencies in combatting sexual harassment.

Kelley Drye has followed this issue closely and is advising clients on proactive steps they can take to prevent sexual harassment. Stopping the “Harveys in our midst” before they can harm our colleagues or our businesses is more important than ever before. Relying on a generic HR sexual harassment policy is not enough. Employers—not just their registered lobbyists—face new requirements with only weeks to comply.
Continue Reading

The recent Equifax breach data and public missteps in handling the breach has companies revisiting their cybersecurity measures and refreshing their breach response plans.  Although not every company has consumer data likely to be targeted by hackers, employment files may be compromised, such as when breaches of U.S. government databases exposed the personally identifiable information

On April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit became the first federal appellate court in the country to extend the protections afford by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The 8-3 decision came after they held a rare en banc hearing on Kimberly Hively’s case (Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College).

The majority opinion written by Chief Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood cited several U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and Loving v. Virginia, and agreed with Hively’s argument that, but for her gender, her employer would have kept her on staff.

“The Supreme Court’s decisions, as well as the common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex, persuade us that the time has come to overrule our previous cases that have endeavored to find and observe that line,” Judge Wood wrote.


Continue Reading

In May 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published “Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act” The EEOC published the guidance as it observed a “troubling trend:” employment policies that deny or restrict leave as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities.  It has been a year since this guidance was published and it is worth revisiting this issue.

The issue arises as follows.  An Employer determines whether an employee is eligible for or has exhausted her Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave.  If the employee is ineligible or has exhausted her FMLA leave, the employer may deny the employee’s request for leave without consideration of the requirements of the ADA.

The ADA requires, among other things, that employers provide “reasonable accommodations” to employees with disabilities if doing so will allow the employees to perform their essential job functions.  An exception exists if the accommodation would cause the employer “undue hardship.”


Continue Reading

It is a fact: employees leave.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average worker currently holds ten different jobs before age forty.[1]  Because employee transitions are inevitable, businesses must prepare to secure their data when an employee exits the company.  Otherwise employers risk having their information (e.g., customer lists and related information, research and development, and strategic business development) stolen.  Stolen information can lead to the loss of competitive advantage, embarrassment and devaluation of image and goodwill, reduced profitability, and loss of core business technology.  These types of damages are difficult to ascertain in monetary terms.

Data is protected by (1) common law, (2) statutory law (e.g., Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Economic Espionage Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and state criminal codes), and (3) contractual agreements (e.g., non-compete, non-solicitation of clients).  While the law protects your data, a lawsuit to enforce such protection can be costly and time consuming with uncertain outcomes.  Thus, preemptive planning is the best defense.


Continue Reading