Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: HB 789 (Illinois)

 

As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This s one to keep an eye on.


On January 8th, HB 789 was introduced in the Illinois Legislature which has the potential to impact the use of non-compete agreements in the state.

The legislation proposes amending the Illinois Freedom to Work Act by requiring employers in the state to review their form contracts and modify their procedures for having employees sign these sort of restrictive covenants.  At present, Illinois employers are allowed to require their employees to sign restrictive covenants.  (Many of these restrictive covenants include non-compete agreements, non-solicitation covenants, and confidentiality provisions.)

HB 789 would apply to non-compete agreements and covenants that bar the solicitation of customers.  (HB 789 does not address other restrictive covenants, as currently written.)  Employers would not be allowed to use a non-compete agreement unless the employee’s actual or expected annualized earnings exceeded $75,000.00/year on the effective date of the legislation (with increases in the earning rate to $80,000.00/year in January 2027, $85,000.00/year in January 2032, and $90,000.00/year in January 2037.)  

In addition, HB 789 would bar the use of non-compete agreements for any employee that was terminated or furloughed as a result of circumstances relating to the coronavirus unless enforcement of the non-compete includes compensation equivalent to the employee’s base salary at the time of termination (minus any compensation earned through subsequent employment.)

Should the legislation pass, which many expect to happen in some form or fashion, it would take effect on June 1st.  This is proposed legislation I would suggest Illinois readers pay close attention to as the bill works its way through the Illinois Legislature.


For additional information:  https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=789&GA=101&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=115017&SessionID=108

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...