Client alert

July 2024

Questions? Contact John by email or at (563)333-9102

We have now had several months to begin adjusting to the implementation of Illinois’ Paid Leave for All Workers Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2024. On December 31, 2023, Cook County enacted its own companion ordinance, and on July 1, 2024 the City of Chicago will begin implementing its own alternative. The questions you need to tackle are: which of these applies to you? And, are you in compliance?

The Paid Leave for All Workers Act

The Paid Leave for All Workers Act is the default rule for the majority of the State. Under the PLAWA, you are required to provide your employees with up to 40 hours of paid leave every 12 months. The Act provides for “up to” 40 hours, because there is an earning system built into the Act where your employees earns 1 hour of paid leave for every 40 hours of work, reaching a cap of 40 hours of PLAWA leave when they have worked 1600 total hours. An employee who works less than 1600 hours is only entitled to the pro rata amount of leave they actually earned. However, all employees are entitled to this leave, regardless of whether they work full time, part time, are temporary, or even only seasonal employees.

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published its final rule regarding non-compete clauses. The final rule bans most non-compete clauses between employers and their workers. The effective date of the final rule is September 4, 2024. The final rule allows employers to maintain existing non-compete agreements with “senior executives” (those who make over $151,164 annual compensation and have policy making authority). The rule prohibits entering into non-compete agreements with senior executives after the rule takes effect.

Employers must also put employees on notice that the employee’s non-compete will not be enforced. Numerous associations and businesses across the country have challenged the final rule, seeking injunctions to stop the implementation of the new rule. The ban covers non-competes with limited exceptions.

Questions? Contact Joe by email or at (563)333-9102

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Holds that a Minnesota School District Violated Free Speech by Promoting Black Lives Matter in Classrooms, While Excluding "Blue Lives" and "All Lives" Matter Themes

By James B. Sherman, Esq.

In the wake of a Minneapolis police officer’s murder of George Floyd and widespread rioting that ensued, teachers at a Twin Cities area school pressed the school’s superintendent to allow them to promote Black Lives Matter in the classroom. Initially, the superintendent denied the request as a violation of school policy against bringing politics into school. However, after community members showed up at school board meetings to protest the decision the district relented to the creation of an “Inclusive Poster Series” depicting diverse student groups but also BLM. When other members of the community sought similar approval to promote competing themes of “Blue Lives” and “All Lives” matter, they were denied.

The lawsuit that followed accused the school district of violating free speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case presented the court with the issue of whether the school district’s support of BLM in its classrooms, amounted to “private speech” or “government speech.” The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the district’s actions amounted to government speech that did not implicate the First Amendment. However, last week the U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed the lower court’s decision and allowed the case to proceed. In doing so the appellate court stated: “…private speech cannot be passed off as government speech simply by affixing a government seal of approval” on a position advocated by private individuals such as teachers and community members.

Questions? Contact Jim by email or at (952)746-1700

Employee Fired for Rude and Aggressive Behavior Deemed Ineligible for Unemployment Compensation Benefits

By James B. Sherman, Esq.

Generally, I don’t write much about unemployment compensation decisions. They don’t impact a business the way a lawsuit can, and employers just don’t seem to find them very interesting. I suspect some of the disinterest stems from unfavorable outcomes employers come to expect when a terminated employee’s application for unemployment compensation benefits is challenged based on “misconduct.” Employers cannot be blamed for concluding that contesting a terminated employee’s eligibility for UC benefits – regardless of why they were discharged – is a waste of time. The deck seems stacked against employers and in favor of fired employees. But once in a while the facts are sufficient that even the unemployment compensation folks won’t find a discharged employee eligible to receive benefits. Such was the outcome of a recent appellate court case that upheld an agency decision to disqualify an employee from receiving unemployment compensation benefits due to his bad attitude. The facts of the case demonstrate where an employee’s behavior can amount to disqualifying “misconduct.” The facts also show how an applicant’s behavior in an unemployment compensation hearing might help make the employer’s case.

The employee in this case worked as a pharmacy technician at a Cub Foods Store. He apparently made a name for himself by behaving rudely toward customers and coworkers alike. When managers attempted to meet with this fellow after he was accused of yelling at a nurse and being impolite to a child, they claimed he became agitated and started yelling that HE was the one “being bullied” by his managers. When a coworker suggested that his behavior was disrespectful toward the managers, the suggestion apparently was not well received. He began yelling and pointing his finger at the coworker to the point that she locked herself in a room out of fear for her safety. Even when the  store manager tried speaking with this individual the next day by phone, he denied any wrongdoing and resumed yelling at the manager. This was the proverbial last straw that reportedly led to his termination for aggressive, threatening, insubordinate, and unprofessional behavior. 

When this “gentleman” applied for unemployment compensation benefits Cub contested it, asserting that his conduct was bad enough to meet the definition of “misconduct,” disqualifying him from receiving benefits.

Questions? Contact Jim by email or at (952)746-1700

WESSELS SHERMAN P.C. | [www.wesselssherman.com]