Last week, Governor JB Pritzker signed into law several bills that significantly amend the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). As a result of these amendments, Illinois employers should expect an uptick in discrimination cases proceeding through state courts and agencies.
Longer Statute of Limitations Period
Under SB3310, effective January 1, 2025, the deadline for filing an administrative charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights based upon employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation—formerly 300 calendar days—is extended to two years after the date that a civil rights violation allegedly has been committed.
Illinois now has one of the longest statute of limitations for state employment discrimination claims. Most states have 180- or 300-day limitations periods. Yet Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and now Illinois have all joined the growing trend to extend these deadlines beyond the federal requirement.
No changes have been made to the limitations period for federal employment discrimination claims brought in Illinois, which must still be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 calendar days from the day the alleged discrimination took place. However, this amendment allows employment discrimination claims to proceed under the IHRA where they may be otherwise barred as untimely under Title VII.
Employers may need to reevaluate document retention policies and consider routine exit interviews to account for this longer statute of limitations period.
New Protected Classes
Family Responsibilities
HB2161, effective January 1, 2025, prohibits an Illinois employer from taking adverse actions against an employee, or prospective employee, based upon the employee's “family responsibilities.”
“Family responsibilities” means an employee's actual or perceived provision of personal care to a family member. Personal care is defined as activities to ensure that a covered family member's basic medical, hygiene, nutritional, or safety needs are met, or to provide transportation to medical appointments, for a covered family member who is unable to meet those needs themself. It also encompasses being physically present to provide emotional support to a covered family member with a serious health condition who is receiving inpatient or home care. Applicable family members include an employee's child, stepchild, spouse, domestic partner, sibling, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandchild, grandparent, or stepparent.
Notably, employers are not required to make accommodations or modifications to company policies for an employee based upon family responsibilities. In addition, an employer may still take adverse action or otherwise enforce reasonable workplace rules or policies relating to leave, scheduling, productivity, attendance, absenteeism, timeliness, work performance, referrals from a labor union hiring hall, and benefits against an employee with family responsibilities, as long as its policies are applied in accordance with the IHRA.
Reproductive Health Decisions
Under HB4867, Illinois employers may not unlawfully discriminate against an employee for actual or perceived decisions on reproductive health and welfare. This amendment goes into effect on January 1, 2025.
“Reproductive Health Decisions” are defined as “a person's decisions regarding the person's use of: contraception; fertility or sterilization care; assisted reproductive technologies; miscarriage management care; healthcare related to the continuation or termination of pregnancy; or prenatal, intranatal, or postnatal care.”
While the IHRA already prohibits discrimination based upon pregnancy, this more expansive provision covers decisions pertaining to abortion, so that employers cannot take adverse action against employees based upon pro-choice or anti-abortion views or healthcare decisions.
California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Mexico, and New York maintain similar state protections.
Restrictions on Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Employment Decisions
HB3773, which goes into effect on January 1, 2026, seeks to regulate the use of AI across the employment lifecycle.
AI is defined to include content-creating generative AI and more traditional predictive AI (which produces scores, ranks, classifications and other recommendations to assist in decision-making).
Employers will be required to provide notice to employees (including apprentices and applicants for apprenticeship) when an AI tool is used for the purpose of “recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment.”
The amendment confirms that employers are liable if the use of AI for any of the purposes listed above results in discrimination against classes of individuals protected by the IHRA.
The amendment does not include job applicants explicitly; however, its tenor and language (e.g., “recruitment”) suggests that the scope will extend to job seekers as well.
The amendment also specifies it is a civil rights violation to use zip codes “as a proxy for protected classes” when making decisions for the purposes above. While the amendment is ambiguous on the issue, we assume this refers to use of zip codes as part of an AI tool or process.
Action Items for Employers
Employers with Illinois employees are encouraged to monitor the Illinois Department of Human Rights website for further guidance, including the promulgation of implementing regulations, which should clarify key compliance details. They should also train managers and supervisors concerning the new protected categories, so that managers and supervisors and the employees under their supervision are not harassing or discriminating against other employees based on their family responsibilities or reproductive health decisions. As stated earlier, in view of the longer statute of limitations, employers should review their record retention policies, especially those relating to retention of employee records and personnel files. Finally, employers should also review their use of AI in the workplace, particularly with respect to the employment lifecycle, to ensure that these uses are compliant with existing and emerging laws, including privacy laws.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.