join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

City of Chicago Requires Airport Service Providers to Enter into Labor Peace Agreements

Executive Summary: As of July 1, 2018, the City of Chicago, as owner and operator of Chicago O’Hare International Airport and Chicago Midway International Airport (the “Airports”), will require that certain users of the Airports enter into a “labor peace agreement” with labor organizations as a condition of their license to provide services at the Airports. The requirement is the result of a recent amendment to Municipal Code Section 2-20-020 (the “2017 Ordinance”) which requires companies that provide baggage handling, passenger services, aircraft cleaning, and other similar services to airline carriers (“Service Providers”) to enter into these agreements in exchange for unions agreeing not to economically interfere with the Service Providers. While the stated purpose behind labor peace ordinances is to promote labor harmony and preclude actions that disrupt the provision of services to the public, they generally make it easier for unions to organize employees, which can have a significant impact on businesses subject to such ordinances.

10 Answers to FAQs Regarding the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act

Several amendments to the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act will become effective June 1, 2018. Staffing agencies (also known as “suppliers”) and user employers (“users”) are finding that some of the law’s requirements are not lessons in clarity. We took a handful of the most frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding the new Illinois law, looked into a crystal ball, and compiled likely answers to those questions below. (Please note that we cannot be sure of any answers until practice, the courts, and/or the state dictate them to us. In other words, please do not rely on any of this educated spit-balling.)

Don’t Go Overboard with Overbroad Non-Competes: Illinois Federal Court Strikes Down Non-Compete Clause

Daniel Dumrauf was a Director with Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc., a Chicago-based staffing agency. Dumrauf worked at Medix’s Scottsdale, Arizona office. Dumrauf’s employment agreement contained a non-compete clause that restricted him from being connected in any manner “with the ownership, management, operation or control” of any business in competition with Medix, either directly or indirectly. The non-compete was to be effective for eighteen months and covered a 50-mile radius.

Non-Compete News: Is Your Non-Compete Clause Too Broad? An Illinois Court Offers Guidance

Executive Summary: When drafting restrictive covenants, employers face a common dilemma about the scope of activities to be restrained. On the one hand, highly focused non-compete language tends to be more enforceable but might not protect the company’s legitimate business interests. On the other, a one-size-fits-all blanket prohibition is more comprehensive but runs the risk it will be unreasonably broad and unenforceable. A recent decision by a federal court in Illinois, Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Dumrauf (N.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2018), draws a bright line regarding when a non-compete clause is overbroad as a matter of law. Notably, the court rejected language used frequently in non-compete covenants throughout the country, finding the language so all-encompassing as to be entirely unreasonable.

Construction One-Minute Read: Medical Marijuana and the Illinois Workplace

There are roughly 30,000 people with medical marijuana registry identification cards in Illinois, and marijuana dispensaries are becoming a more common sight. As the popularity of this treatment continues to grow, contractors are more likely to be faced with hiring and disciplinary decisions involving employees using marijuana. As such, contractors may want to take care to understand the legal landscape governing these decisions.

Recent Illinois Appellate Court Ruling Could End The Recent Flood Of Class Action Lawsuits Against Employers Under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act

Since mid-September 2017, more than 50 employers that use “biometric timeclocks” in Illinois have been targeted with class action lawsuits alleging violations of the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). A unanimous ruling issued on December 21, 2017, by the Illinois Appellate Court, could reduce the flood to a trickle. The case holds that to state a claim under BIPA, a plaintiff must allege more than a mere failure to comply with BIPA’s requirements to provide notice and obtain consent before collecting biometric data.1

Illinois Court of Appeals Holds BIPA Plaintiffs Must Allege Some Actual Harm

In a ruling that may have significant impact on the recent wave of biometric privacy suits, an Illinois state appeals court held that plaintiffs must claim actual harm to be considered an “aggrieved person” covered by Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), in a dispute arising from the alleged unlawful collection of fingerprints from a Six Flags season pass holder.

The Second Circuit Provides A Roadmap For Employers Defending Claims Under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act

While the emergence of biometric technology in the workplace is not a new phenomenon, employers being sued for utilizing this technology is a new trend. Over the past three months, more than 30 class action lawsuits have been filed in Illinois state and federal courts against employers that use timeclocks that scan an employee’s fingerprint, retina, or iris to clock employees into and out of work (“biometric timeclocks”).1 The lawsuits allege violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), which governs the collection, use, and disclosure of biometric data2 by entities in Illinois.

Clear as Mud: Illinois Courts Continue to Grapple With The “Adequacy” Of Consideration for Non-Compete Agreements

It is axiomatic that a contract requires consideration to be binding. Ordinarily, courts only inquire into the existence, but not the “adequacy,” of consideration.

Illinois Attorney General Wages War Against Low-Wage Non-Competes

Last week, the Attorney General of Illinois filed suit against Check Into Cash, LLC, alleging that the payday lender required its low-wage customer service employees to agree to illegal non-compete agreements in violation of Illinois law. The lawsuit is another example of the Attorney General’s fight against illegal non-competes and marks the first time the Attorney General has brought a claim under the Illinois Freedom to Work Act, 820 ILCS 90/1.