4-23-2025; Another Illinois Pro-Employee Rule--Does the IL WC Industry Need to Get More General Releases?; Fall-Down Claim Dismissal Reversed and more

/

Synopsis: Test Question for Our Readers. There is Another Illinois Pro-Employee Rule to Consider When Settling IL WC Claims.

 

Editor’s comment: Assume you have a WC claimant who is a challenging worker. The worker files a difficult-to-accept IL WC claim and are very unhappy with your company. During the pendency of the WC claim, they quit work for your company. You are working hard to close the WC case but you are also wondering—as the worker left your company, do you have to settle or seek a release from possible employment law charges/complaints? You wouldn’t have a release/resignation because the worker doesn’t work for you at the time of settlement.

 

Turns out, Illinoisans seeking to file a charge of workplace discrimination, harassment, or retaliation now have lots more time to file with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) after the date of the incident, in most cases. Effective January 1, 2025, a new Illinois law expanded the statute of limitations on workplace discrimination, harassment or retaliation cases from 300 days to 2 years.

 

“Here in Illinois, we’re committed to ensuring that everyone has a chance to seek justice when facing discrimination, harassment, or retaliation,” said Governor JB Pritzker. “By extending the deadline to file a charge, we’re empowering individuals with more time to take action and make their voices heard.”

 

“This legislative change is about giving survivors the time and support they need to come forward,” said Lt. Governor Juliana Stratton. “We recognize that healing is not linear, and extending the statute of limitations reflects our commitment to empowering those seeking accountability and ensuring their voices are heard.”

 

Public Act 103-0973 extends the deadline for filing a charge of discrimination in the contexts of employment, financial credit, and public services and accommodations, including educational institutions. For housing cases, the time remains unchanged, one year to file a charge with IDHR or 2 years to file a complaint in circuit court.

 

The extended statute of limitations will ensure that people who have experienced discrimination and have run into barriers to prompt filing can still seek an investigation of the incident. Barriers to prompt filing include not realizing the incident was a civil rights violation, needing time to recover from a traumatic incident, or needing time to engage in settlement negotiations prior to formally filing a charge.

 

“Illinois has one of the strongest sets of civil rights protections of any state” said IDHR Director Jim Bennett. “By extending the deadline to file from 300 days to 2 years, Illinois joins 11 other states that have provided a greater opportunity to seek the protections and redress afforded by the Human Rights Act.”

 

Please remember the employee may no longer be in your workforce to bring such claims! You may not want a release/”resignation” in such cases but you may still want to offer and pay for a concomitant release as part of IL WC claim settlements.

 

The lesson to be learned from this is get a signed release whenever and wherever possible to close even a former employee’s common law and administrative rights to bring more litigation against you, despite settling the WC claim.

 

If you want to consider and look at our suggested release to be used in such settings, send a reply.

 

For questions regarding this article or the Illinois Human Rights Act or IDHR’s rule and regulations, contact Bradley Smith at bsmith@keefe-law.com.

 

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog at www.keefe-law.com

 

 

Synopsis: Fall-Down on Fruit Smoothie Will Probably Go to Trial. This is a Challenging Decision That May Cause Havoc for Companies That Have “Passive” Surveillance Videos.

 

Editor’s Comment: Please take a look at the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in  CRUZ v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (2025) | FindLaw, a recent decision with meaningful implications for defending  your premises liability claims. Thoughts and Comments by Bradley Smith, JD. and your editor.

 

In Cruz v. Costco, Plaintiff slipped on a slick substance felt to be dropped from a fruit smoothie near a checkout lane and claimed significant personal injuries. The U.S. District Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Costco, finding there was no evidence that store personnel had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard.

 

However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, holding that summary judgment was improper. Please note this is an intermediate federal court and the next level is the U.S. Supreme Court that is very busy these days and may not accept a further appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded a jury could reasonably infer constructive notice based on surveillance footage showing an employee walking through the area shortly before the incident.

 

Although there was no direct evidence of how long the slippery substance was on the floor, the Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence—such as employee proximity and training gaps—created factual questions that should be resolved at trial.

 

In our view, this is a very liberal outcome because, in my view, few U.S. retailers actively and regularly look at surveillance video. I call it “passive” surveillance—in most settings, they take a look at the video after there is a question raised. I am not aware of any retailer that actively checks video to see if there is anything that might cause an issue or injury.

 

At present, this outcome almost certainly guarantees “universal” constructive notice for companies with surveillance video of the workplace.

 

Defense Takeaways:

 

  • This ruling confirms “passive” surveillance footage can be a double-edged sword—while often helpful, it may also be interpreted to create a duty to observe and react quickly to developing hazards.

  • Employee training and inspection protocols will continue to be scrutinized closely. Inconsistent testimony or unclear policies may prevent early dismissal.

  • The decision reflects a strict standard for summary judgment in slip-and-fall cases where any arguable issue of fact remains, particularly involving actual or constructive notice.

 

We recommend reviewing your current internal documentation practices, inspection logs, and training procedures to ensure consistency and legal defensibility in the event of similar claims. We are happy to help.

 

If you’d like to discuss how this case might apply to your operations or defense strategy, please don’t hesitate to reach out. You can send a reply or email Bradley Smith at bsmith@keefe-law.com.