The Employment Law attorneys at McKenna Storer handle a broad range of matters for employers from representing them before various administrative agencies and courts to offering counseling and preventative services. Our attorneys regularly defend claims brought under state and federal human rights statutes such as Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Less than three weeks ago, I wrote a blog regarding why employers needed to be prepared for the reality that the Corona COVID – 19 virus could shut down business. At that time, there had only been two confirmed Illinois cases – three weeks later, Illinois has over 1,000 known cases of COVID 19s, the Governor has issued a “shelter in place” order for all non-essential workers, and employers are forced to face a reality that their workplace and workforce may never look the same.
All Illinois employers must provide yearly sexual harassment prevention training starting this year. Illinois Public Act 101-0221 amended the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”) , Section 2-109,requiring Illinois employers to provide annual sexual harassment prevention training by December 31, 2020, and then annually thereafter.
Since January 1, 2020, the Illinois Cannabis Regulation & Tax Act has legalized the production, sale, transport and consumption of recreational cannabis. The Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act also legalized banking for Cannabis Related Businesses (CRB’s) in Illinois, stating that financial institutions assisting CRB’s, such as banks or credit unions, are exempt from state criminal laws.
Approximately one year after a public law went into effect limiting the size of a civil jury to 6 persons, the Illinois Supreme Court has deemed the act unconstitutional.
Every breaking news story that might have been reported through eyewitness accounts now features at least one or more videos of the actual event shot by onlookers. Every person with a smartphone or other camera-equipped digital device is a potential source of a video clip for the evening news.Continue Reading
In EEOC v. Aerotek, Inc., No. 15-1690, March 4, 2016, 7th Circuit, the EEOC filed suit against the employer and applied for an order to enforce the EEOC’s administrative subpoena against the employer (a temporary staffing agency). The EEOC had investigated the employer to assess the employer’s compliance with the ADEA. The EEOC sought information regarding “all” the staffing agency’s clients’ job requisition requests of the employer. The EEOC also asked for information about “all” persons that the employer referred for employment to the staffing agency’s clients. The staffing agency “partially” complied with the subpoenas. The information taken from that compliance revealed hundreds of discriminatory job requests by the staffing agency’s clients who attempted to limit referrals to younger individuals. Further, the staffing agency removed information from their compliance documents that would identify clients seeking such referrals. The Court held the EEOC could properly seek the information they requested because: (1) the requested information was within the scope of the EEOC’s authority to investigate “potential” employment discrimination; and (2) the subpoenas were properly aimed at “any” discriminatory requests that were not recorded in the employer’s database. The Seventh Circuit rejected the staffing agency’s argument that disclosure was inappropriate because it would harm the staffing agency’s business relationships with their clients.
In This Issue…
In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 14-3653, December 17, 2015, 7th Circuit, CVS fired a store manager and offered her a severance agreement which she signed. The agreement included a broad release of waivable claims relating to her employment, including claims under Title VII. The agreement expressly carved out the manager’s right to participate in a proceeding with any appropriate federal, state or local government agency enforcing discrimination laws. One month after signing the agreement, the manager filed a charge with the EEOC alleging that CVS fired her because of her race and sex. After CVS sent a copy of the severance agreement to the EEOC, the EEOC sent CVS a letter stating it had reasonable cause to believe CVS is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of the rights secured by Title VII. The EEOC contended the severance agreement was unenforceable. A short time later the EEOC dismissed the manager’s discrimination charge. CVS asked the EEOC to comply with the pre-suit conciliation procedures contained in Section 706 of Title VII. The EEOC responded it was not required to engage in conciliation because it was proceeding under Section 707(a) and was not bound by the pre-suit conciliation requirements contained in Section 706.
The Appellate Court for the First District has found that conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice in a murder case are not necessarily bars to inheriting form the murder victim.
Darota Chaban married William Chaban in Las Vegas on June 9, 2007. When they returned to Chicago on June 13, 2007 and informed Darota’s mother Irene of their marriage, Irene was initially upset. On June 18, 2007, Irene was discovered dead by Darota and William at Irene’s condominium. Irene was last seen on Friday, June 15 at her place of employment. Darota told the police and a grand jury she had not been at her mother’s condominium on June 15 or the rest of the weekend, she was never in the condominium on June 15 and she was with William most of the day. After being confronted with phone records placing her in the condominium on Friday, Darota admitted she had lied and claimed she was following William’s instruction. Darota was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. William was charged and convicted of first degree murder of Irene and sentenced to 45 years in prison. Darota filed a petition to probate Irene’s will and the court appointed her administrator of the estate. Darota later resigned and the trial court appointed the Administrator. The Administrator argued Darota was barred from inheriting her mother’s estate by 755 ILCS 5/2-6 (“Slayer Statute”) and provides, in pertinent part: