Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

Amends the Illinois Human Rights Act. Provides that “employer” includes any person employing one (instead of 15) or more employees within Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks within the calendar year of or preceding the alleged violation.

* Press release…

State Rep. Will Guzzardi (D-Chicago) is pushing to pass new legislation that will amend the Illinois Human Rights Act, expanding its protections to more people across the state of Illinois.

“If you work somewhere with less than 15 employees, under current Illinois law, you are not protected from discrimination in the workplace,” Rep. Guzzardi said. “Discrimination should not be legal in any workplace in Illinois, regardless of how many people work there.”

The legislation would change the definition of “employer” from “any person employing one (instead of 15) or more employees” for 20 weeks within the previous calendar year.

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration about 16 percent of firms across the state employ 1-19 workers, or about 220,000 businesses.

“This bill won’t affect the majority of small business owners, because most small business owners are not practicing discrimination,” said Rep. Guzzardi. “Besides updating these protections, we need to be proactive as legislators when it comes to educating people about their rights. You have 180 days to file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights after facing discrimination, harassment or retaliation in the workplace, and your employer has to respond within 60 day after that.”

Some federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination follow a similar “15 or more” employer definition. Chicago and Cook County are exempted from the bill because they follow their own Humans Rights statutes.

* The Question: Your thoughts on this bill?

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 3:58 pm

Comments

Interesting that Guzzardi keeps pushing legislation that won’t affect the majority of people.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:00 pm
One might be too few but five is a good threshold for this. Frankly, I’ve never understood why small businesses haven’t been subject to these laws. It would affect my business and I would support this move.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:04 pm
No employer should have the right to discriminate against their employees. Sounds like a good loophole to close to me.

Comment by Chicago_Downstater Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:05 pm
*ability not right. My apologies.

Comment by Chicago_Downstater Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:06 pm
Illinois feel good legislation. Employers generally hire who they want….

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:12 pm
A solution in search of a problem.

Comment by Texas Red Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:16 pm
Oppose. It takes a lot of resources to deal with a DHR complaint. I’m a big fan of start-ups and smaller businesses and this could be a significant challenge. Additionally, I believe there are other legal avenues a person could pursue to redress discrimination anyway. I would enjoy visiting that world where only employers to practice discrimination get complaints filed against them.

Comment by Earnest Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:20 pm
He is just plain wrong about employees at businesses with fewer than 15 employees not being protected from discrimination. The very next line in Statute states “any person employing one or more employees when a complainant alleges civil rights violation due to unlawful discrimination based upon his or her physical or mental disability unrelated to ability, pregnancy, or sexual harassment.”

Not to mention the Civil Rights Act of 1994, Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Equal Pay Act of 2003, and a few other federal and State laws.

Comment by Alex P. Keaton Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:22 pm
So does this affect me and how I hire a babysitter? The low threshold opens a can of worms.

Comment by ChrisB Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:25 pm
Note that he is not trying to remove the carveout for public officials!

Comment by Put the fun in unfunded Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:25 pm
AK is right
“employers” include
(b) Any person employing one or more employees when a complainant alleges civil rights violation due to unlawful discrimination based upon his or her physical or mental disability unrelated to ability, pregnancy, or sexual harassment

Comment by 13TH Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:27 pm
===physical or mental disability===

That misses a whole lot of stuff under the Act.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:28 pm
so if my elderly mom wants to discriminate in the hiring of her home care assistant, she is subject to the human rights act? I’m against discrimination, but if I’m approaching my end of life, and need help maintaining myself in my own home, shouldn’t I be cut some slack? maybe the arc of justice doesn’t have to bend for everyone all the time.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:32 pm
“This bill won’t affect the majority of small business owners, because most small business owners are not practicing discrimination,”

That’s kind of an ignorant statement of what the Department deals with: You don’t have to practice discrimination to be accused of it by an employee or customer. But smaller businesses (including home service workers, like caregivers and babysitters), have less capabilities to defend against it. That and the Department, and certainly the backlogged Commission, is in no way prepared for the intricacies of handling cases of businesses with small numbers of employees (which comes with fewer witnesses, paperwork, and examples of coworkers receiving different treatment than the accuser).

Comment by NIU Grad Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:37 pm
“so if my elderly mom wants to discriminate in the hiring of her home care assistant, she is subject to the human rights act”

Yes, she would be. Hopefully she has a good attorney…

Comment by NIU Grad Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:38 pm
If I recall the 15 mirrors what the EEOC uses. Employers below 15 are deemed to small to effect commerce. Seems kind of dumb to make it even more burdensome for truly tiny employers. But why would asn Illinois Dem legislator care about burdening employers

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:39 pm
–Interesting that Guzzardi keeps pushing legislation that won’t affect the majority of people.–

A majority of people aren’t farmers, teachers, police officers, seniors, infants, etc., still, legislation is offered to protect or advance the interests of a minority of the people all the time.

Comment by King Louis XVI Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:45 pm
“According to the U.S. Small Business Administration about 16 percent of firms across the state employ 1-19 workers, or about 220,000 businesses.” Guzzardi’s statistics are completely screwed up. The SBA actually says that firms that employ 1-19 workers have a total of 220,246 employees or 16% of the total employment in the state.

Comment by striketoo Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:01 pm
Not a solution.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:06 pm
Lets make it even harder on small business in illinois there will be lots of cases filed by disgruntled employees.

Comment by NorthsideNoMore Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:34 pm
The ADA law is currently abused by “drive-by lawsuits” against small businesses in Chicago over ADA compliance issues. Often times they threaten these small businesses into settlements that neither addresses the issues or give clarity on what the law is for. With this being said as a person with a disability and walking into the “problem” businesses, I see fear and resentment and I don’t see how the law is used in the manner it’s designed for. Take this to the level of Employment can be far more harmful than helpful…

Comment by Iamthepita Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:41 pm
==Seems kind of dumb to make it even more burdensome for truly tiny employers==

It’s burdensome to ask businesses to refrain from discrimination? I’d love to hear that explanation. Tell us Sue, what sorts of discrimination should businesses be allowed to engage in.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 8:34 am
Quick question as we know the employment practices have been evolving as most employers are moving away from having employees to “interns” and “independent contractor” relationship, how would this apply toward employers using contractors? For example, a small construction company has an “employee” that they classify as “independent contractor” who has been working for that company for years like an employee… I hope I’m making sense in my question because I’m thinking, how could this apply in situations like Uber drivers discriminating but they’re classified as “independent contractor” so it makes it challenging to determine if the company is doing systematic discrimination or not (note, I’m only using “uber” as an example, not suggesting or implying anything)

Comment by Iamthepita Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 8:53 am
About time someone closed this loophole. Blatant discrimination could not be investigated when a company kept their staff under 15.

Comment by Aldemuvs Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 10:10 am