As the #MeToo movement continues to sweep the country, on August 9, 2019, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed into law Illinois Senate Bill 75 (now Public Act 101-0221) which will mandate statewide sexual harassment training for employers in Illinois and add other obligations and restrictions aimed at curbing sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

Taking effect in just a few short months, the Act will require at least some policy, practice, and/or contracts revisions by virtually all Illinois employers.

Substantively, Senate Bill 75 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) and the Victims’ Economic Security and Safety Act (VESSA) in numerous significant ways, and enacts the Workplace Transparency Act (WTA) and Hotel and Casino Employee Safety Act.

Unless otherwise noted, these amendments and new laws take effect January 1, 2020.
Continue Reading

In a victory for franchisors, the California Supreme Court has ruled that Domino’s Pizza (Domino’s) was not liable as an employer or as a principal in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by an employee of a Domino’s franchisee. Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, No. S204543, 2014 WL 4236175 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2014). The plaintiff worked in a Domino’s Pizza franchise store operated by Sui Juris, LLC. She claimed that shortly after she began working, her supervisor sexually harassed her whenever they worked the same shift. She complained to the franchisee, who suspended the supervisor pending an investigation. Despite the supervisor never returning to work, the plaintiff resigned and filed a lawsuit, bringing multiple claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for sexual harassment, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge, among others.
Continue Reading

In the second of two recent Title VII harassment cases, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided that a supervisor need not have hiring or firing authority in order to create liability for failing to respond properly to a harassment complaint. Lambert v. Peri Formworks Sys., Inc., Case No. 12-2502 (7th Cir., 7/24/13). The decision comes on the heels of last month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified that a supervisor must have authority to make tangible employment decisions, such as hiring, firing and discipline, in order for that supervisor to create strict liability for the employer for his or her own harassing conduct. See [U.S. Supreme Court Defines “Supervisor” Status for Purposes of Assessing Harassment Liability Under Title VII]
Continue Reading