BRIAN J GRABER LLC is an Illinois Whistleblower Act lawyer representing employees retaliated against by their employer in violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act. The Illinois Whistleblower Act (IWA) 740 ILCS 174/1,
Provides employees with a broad statutory remedy for wrongful termination or retaliation short of termination such as a suspension or demotion, including constructive discharge.
Under the Illinois Whistleblower Act an employer may not retaliate against an employee for engaging in any of the following protected activities:
New York Significantly Expands Its Whistleblower Law
If you believe your employer retaliated against you in violation of your rights under the Illinois Whistleblower Act contact BRIAN J GRABER LLC, an Illinois Whistleblower Act lawyer, at (312) 291-4648 or by email to schedule a free confidential consultation.
The Illinois Whistleblower Act applies to all employers with one or more employees in the State of Illinois. The Illinois Whistleblower Act broadly defines the term “employer” as follows:
“Employer” means: an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, firm, association, and any other entitiy that has one or more employees in this State, including a political subdivision of the State; a unit of local government; a school district, combination of school districts, or governing body of a joint agreement of any type formed by two or more school districts; a community college district, State college or university, or any State agency whose major function is providing educational services; any authority including a department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other agency of these entities; and any person acting within the scope of his or her authority express or implied on behalf of those entities in dealing with its employees. Illinois Whistleblower Act, (IWA), 740 ILCS 174/5.
Whistleblower Protection Lawyer
This definition of “employer” under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 ILCS 174/5 imposes liability on management employees who engage in retaliation against co-workers on behalf of their employers. The Illinois Whistleblower Act imposes liability on all political subdivisions of the State of Illinois, municipal employers, and county employers.
“Employee” means any individual who is employed on a full-time, part-time, or contractual basis by an employer. “Employee” also includes, but is not limited to, a licensed physician who practices his or her profession, in whole or in part, at a hospital, nursing home, clinic, or any medical facility that is a health care facility funded, in whole or in part, by the State. Illinois Whistleblower Act, (IWA), 740 ILCS 174/5.
Employees who have an employment contract are not at-will employees. Employees wrongfully terminated who are not at-will employees do not have a claim for wrongful termination under the Illinois common law tort of retaliatory discharge. See
Whistleblower Protections For Nevada Public Employees
, 381 Ill. Dec. 298, 307-308 (1st Dist. 2014). However, employees employed on a contractual basis are protected under the Illinois Whistleblower Act if their contract is not renewed in retaliation for their protected activity. See
, 381 Ill. Dec. at 312 (holding an assistant principal suffered retaliation in the form of the non-renewal of his employment contract resulting from his report of child abuse).
Persons employed by the State of Illinois have broad protections from retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the Ethics Act Whistleblower Protection provisions. Click here to learn more about State employee whistleblower protections under the Ethics Act.
Protection Rrom Workplace Retaliation Against Whistleblowers
If you believe that your employer retaliated against you in violation of your rights under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, contact BRIAN J GRABER LLC, an Illinois Whistleblower Act lawyer, at (312) 291-4648 or by email to schedule a free confidential consultation.
The Illinois Whistleblower Act, (IWA), 740 ILCS 174/5 definition of “employee” was amended to include a licensed physician who practices his or her profession, in whole or in part, at a hospital, nursing home, clinic, or any medical facility that is a health care facility funded, in whole or in part, by the State to protect physician whistleblowers. Before this amendment to the Illinois Whistleblowers Act, physicians who have their privilege to practice medicine revoked at hospitals or nursing homes in retaliation for whistleblowing generally cannot meet the common law definition of “employee” and therefore do not have any Illinois common law claim for the tort of retaliatory discharge. See
, 2020 IL App (1st) 190854 (affirming dismissal of doctor’s common law tort claim of retaliatory discharge for whistleblowing because the doctor failed to submit evidence to create an issue of fact as to employee status). However, a hospital or nursing home that accepts Medicaid payments is covered by the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 ILCS 174/5 when they revoke a doctor’s privileges to practice medicine at their facility in retaliation for whistleblowing activity. See
New York Department Of Labor Issues Required Posting For Expanded Whistleblower Protection Law
, 2020 IL App (1st) 190854 (Medicaid payments do indeed constitute State funding and doctors practicing at medical facilities receiving such payments are “employees” with standing to sue under the IWA).
If you believe your privileges to practice at a hospital, nursing home, or another medical facility accepting Medicaid were revoked in retaliation for whistleblowing activities in violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act, contact BRIAN J GRABER LLC, an Illinois Whistleblower Act lawyer, at (312) 291-4648 or by email to schedule a free confidential consultation.
Whistleblowing is exposing violations of law. The Illinois Whistleblower Act, (IWA), 740 ILCS 174/5 creates a private cause of action when an employer retaliates against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule or regulation. See
Whistleblower Retaliation And Whistleblower Protection Lawyers
145 F. Supp. 3d 771, 775-776 (N.D. Ill. 2015). However, unlike the common law tort of retaliatory discharge which allows an employee to engage in protected activity by reporting violations of laws internally to his or her employer, the Illinois Whistleblower Act requires the employee to report alleged violations to governmental agencies or law enforcement.
An employer may not retaliate against an employee who discloses infromation in a court, an administrative hearing, or before a legislative commission or committee, or in any other proceeding, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the infromation discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation. Illinois Whistleblower Act, (IWA), 740 ILCS 174/15(a).
Under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, (IWA), 740 ILCS 174/15(a) an employee only engages in protected activity if he or she discloses what he or she reasonably believes is a violation of a State or federal law. rule, or regulation in court, at an administrative hearing, a legislature, or some other official governmental proceeding. Therefore, an employee who only reports what he or she reasonably believes is a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation to his or her manager, supervisor, or human resources is not protected under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 ILCS 174/15(a). However, that employee may have a common law claim for the tort of retaliatory discharge for whistleblowing.
Whistleblower Retaliation Lawyer Wins Big!
The Illinois Whistleblower Act imposes liability on employers who retaliated against their employees who engage in protected activity by disclosing what they reasonably believe to violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation to a government agency or law enforcement as follows:
An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation. Illinois Whistleblower Act, (IWA), 740 ILCS 174/15(b).
Retaliating against an employee for disclosing information to a law enforcement agency that he or she reasonably believes discloses a violation of an Illinois or federal law, rule, or regulation is a violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act.
Pivotal Documents In A Corporate Whistleblower Retaliation Case
Under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, (IWA), 740 ILCS 174/15(b), an employee only engages in protected activity by reporting what he or she has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation to a government agency or law enforcement. An employee who only discloses what he or she has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation to his or her manager, supervisor, or human resources but does not disclose the alleged violation to a government agency or law enforcement is not protected under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 ILCS 174/15(b) from retaliation. See
478 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1054-1055 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (holding employee had no right of recovery under the IWA where he revealed information about a suspected violation to his employer and not some governmental or law enforcement agency). However, that employee may have a claim under the Illinois common law tort of retaliatory discharge for whistleblowing.
No. 21-2601 (7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2022) the issue was raised whether the Illinois Whistleblower Act statutory phrase – “a violation of a State or federal law, rule or regulation” – the term “State” means Illinois or whether it could mean some other state like New York. In
Whistleblower Litigation & Osc Lawyer
, an employee claimed he was terminated in retaliation for refusing to participate in the sale of a detergent that violated a New York state environmental regulation. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision that the presumption against extraterritorial effect makes it highly improbable that “State” in those contexts meant “any
0 comments
Post a Comment