Login

The Illinois Employee Classification Act of 2008 Takes Effect

The newly enacted Illinois Employee Classification Act of 2008 took effect on January 1, 2008. The purpose of the Act is "to address the practice of misclassifying employees as independent contractors." 820 ILCS 185/3, in the construction, trucking, landscaping and related industries. Under this harsh new law, severe civil fines, penalties and criminal charges may be levied against employers or contractors found to have misclassified employees as independent contractors.

The Act further authorizes the Illinois Department of Labor to assess significant fines on employers or contractors who misclassify employees as independent contractors. It also gives those aggrieved by the misclassification the right to file suit and seek substantial money damages against the employer or contractor.

This Act is of major concern to Illinois employers in the industries targeted because of the significant financial exposure as well as criminal charges that may result from violations.

 Related Publications

o Read [Illinois Governor’s Press Release]

o Read [Illinois Department of Labor’s Proposed Rules]

 

SUPREME COURT- VICTIMS OF SEX DISCRIMINATION IN PAY MUST COMPLAIN WHEN PAY DECISION IS MADE

The United States Supreme Court’s ruling of May 29, 2008 makes it harder for victims of discrimination in pay to win if they do not sue promptly. This ruling requires that victims of pay discrimination file an EEOC charge of discrimination within 180 days or 300 days after the pay decision is made in order to be able to later sue in federal court. The Court explained the deadline for filing a charge does not start running at the time when the discriminatory paychecks are received because the paycheck only reflects the effects of the prior discriminatory decision. The clock starts running for the employee when the pay decision is made instead.

This decision does not favor victims of pay discrimination who typically are not always certain when the discrimination pay decision is made by the employee. Furthermore, in light of the confidential nature of salaries, victims of pay discrimination are frequently unaware that they are underpaid until much later when they learn of the salaries paid to others in the same position. By then, the relatively short deadline for filing a charge has expired, rendering them unable to sue or recover. Lilly Ledbetter v. The Good-year Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. Case Number 05-1074 (May 29, 2008). [Read the entire court ruling].

 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT- REQUIRING FEMALE RECEPTIONIST TO SERVE COFFEE TO MALE WORKERS NOT GROUNDS FOR SEX

A United States District Court has ruled that a female receptionist who was fired from her job after refusing to get coffee for the men in her office cannot sustain a lawsuit for sexual harassment or retaliation. The judge ruled that there is nothing sexist about requiring workers to serve coffee and that the act of getting coffee is not by itself a gender-specific act.

The Plaintiff was a part-time receptionist who initially complied with the requests to bring coffee to male coworkers as part of her job as a receptionist even though she found the requests to be demeaning and embarrassing. Plaintiff later refused to comply with orders to bring coffee for male co-workers but agreed that she would do so for guests. In her e-mail, she said that she not "serve and wait on you [male co-workers] by making coffee and serving you." Her employer, claiming that her e-mail was the straw that broke the camel’s back, fired her. The judge dismissed her entire case of sex harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination on the basis that she could not prove that she was subjected to demeaning treatment due to her sex and was not a victim of sexual advances. Tamara Klopfenstein v. National Sales and Supply, LLC. No. 07-4004. (June 5, 2008) [Read the entire court ruling].

 

SUPREME COURT- AGE DISCRIMINATION EASIER TO PROVE WHERE NEUTRAL POLICY AFFECTS OLDER WORKERS MORE

The United States Supreme Court’s ruling of June 19, 2008 makes it easier for Plaintiffs to prove age discrimination in federal court. Under this ruling, where an employee shows that a particular employment policy instituted by an employer affects older workers disproportionately, the burden is now placed on the employer to prove that those policies were based on reasonable factors other than age. If unable to prove this defense, the employee will likely win the case. This applies even if the claimed policy is neutral on its face so long as it has a disparate impact on older workers.

This is a significant decision in favor of employees claiming age discrimination because it requires employers to prove that their choices are reasonable, thus making such cases harder and costlier for employers to defend. While plaintiffs must still isolate and identify specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for the observed statistical disparities, the employer who seeks to benefit from the "reasonable factors other than age" exemption is required to prove that it applies. This decision significantly decreases the burden that employees must carry in disparate-impact age claims. Meacham, et. al. v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, et. al., Case Number 06-1505, 2008 U.S. Lexis 5029 (June 19, 2008). [Read the entire court ruling].

 

-->