Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Energy News: Local Governments To Miss Out On $222 Million In Potential Tax Revenue
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* Press release…
A measure from State Senator Melinda Bush (D-Grayslake) that provides greater protections for private sector workers who experience sexual harassment and discrimination passed out of the Senate without opposition this afternoon.
“Right now, Illinois workers who are harassed or discriminated against don’t have the protections they need to seek justice and hold perpetrators accountable.” Bush said. “This bill strengthens workers’ rights and includes reasonable requirements for employers that will create safer workplaces.”
The measure was drafted based on recommendations that were made last year during the Senate sexual harassment task force hearings.
“The Illinois Chamber participated in an open and thoughtful process on SB 1829, and we provided language we believe will help make a better workplace environment for employers and employees in Illinois,” said Jay Shattuck, executive director of the Employment Law Council at the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. “The Chamber will continue to work with the task force senators and other stakeholders to help make a safe, more dependable and productive work environment throughout Illinois.”
“Preventing sexual harassment and discrimination and ensuring our workplaces are safe is not only good for workers, it’s good for business,” Bush said. “I’m pleased that leaders in the business community came to the table and worked with me on this important legislation.”
“With the #MeToo movement, women and men stood up and said ‘enough is enough,’” said State Senator Toi Hutchinson (D-Olympia Fields). “People deserve to work in an environment free from discrimination and sexual harassment. It’s well past time that we strengthen protections for workers and ensure all Illinoisans can live and work in peace.”
Senate Bill 1829 is an omnibus bill, which:
· Limits the use of legal documents intended to prevent an employee from reporting sexual harassment, such as non-disclosure agreements, arbitration clauses, and non-disparagement clauses for cases involving harassment, discrimination and retaliation
· Makes harassment against contract employees illegal (currently, these employees do not have legal protection against sexual harassment)
· Clarifies that it is illegal to discriminate against an employee if they are perceived to be part of a protected class (i.e. gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity), even if they are not
· Allows victims of sexual harassment to take unpaid leave from work to seek medical help, legal assistance, counseling, safety planning and other assistance
· Prevents a union representative from representing both a victim of sexual harassment and the alleged harasser in a disciplinary proceeding
· Requires employers, labor organizations and units of local government to disclose the number of sexual harassment and discrimination settlements or actions against them to the Department of Human Rights
· Requires the Department of Human Rights to make a sexual harassment training program available for employers to provide to their employeesBush introduced the measures after hearing from victims, advocates and members of the business community during the Senate Task Force on Sexual Discrimination and Harassment Awareness and Prevention’s hearings last year. She served as the co-chair of the task force.
* And from the other chamber…
Majority Leader Greg Harris, Assistant Majority Leader Natalie Manley and Majority Conference Chair Kathleen Willis released the following statement Thursday regarding Sen. Melinda Bush’s sexual harassment omnibus legislation:
“As members of the Legislative Ethics Commission, Representatives Manley and Willis believe that addressing an issue as critical as ending workplace harassment requires a thorough, thoughtful approach. Senator Bush’s legislation contains many elements which will be reviewed and evaluated alongside ethics and human rights issues proposed by members of the House in our effort to develop the most comprehensive legislation possible. Members from both sides of the aisle have been invited to be part of this process. We have discussed these intentions with Senator Bush and made a commitment to our Senate colleagues on the Ethics Commission to work with them in this process.”
* The Question: Would you add anything to or remove anything from this bill? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 3:09 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Energy News: Local Governments To Miss Out On $222 Million In Potential Tax Revenue
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The House’s response is a polite way of saying they’re either going to kill the bill or seriously water it down.
It is worth noting that neither Manley or Willis served on the House’s sexual harassment task force last year and that legislative ethics have vastly different considerations than sexual harassment in the private sector, which is what this bill appears to be targeting.
Comment by ThinkingOutLoud Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 3:23 pm
This has gotta go …
“if they are perceived to be part of a protected class (i.e. gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity), even if they are not”
So now anyone can claim to be part of a protected class ?
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 3:27 pm
===So now anyone can claim to be part of a protected class ? ===
Have you never heard of someone being picked on because people thought he was gay? You cannot be that isolated.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 3:51 pm
==- ThinkingOutLoud - Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 3:23 pm:
The House’s response is a polite way of saying they’re either going to kill the bill or seriously water it down.
It is worth noting that neither Manley or Willis served on the House’s sexual harassment task force last year and that legislative ethics have vastly different considerations than sexual harassment in the private sector, which is what this bill appears to be targeting.==
The bill impacts state and other public employers too.
Comment by Kudos Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 3:59 pm
“if they are perceived to be part of a protected class (i.e. gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity), even if they are not”
I think this kind of language is pretty standard for this kind of thing (though I’m not an expert) and is more about the perception of the perpetrator, not the victim. For example, if X punches Y because X thought Y was a Muslim, and it turns out Y is actually Sikh, X can’t use “He’s not actually a Muslim!” as a defense for hate crime charges.
Comment by Actual Red Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 4:15 pm
I’d remove the sponsors of the house bill and replace them with someone who cares.
Comment by Petty Patty Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 4:35 pm
Bush held monthly hearings on this for a year and has spent the last couple months negotiating this bill.
Meanwhile, Willis and Manley stood with Lou Lang at a press conference when he was accused of harassment before they even knew what the allegations were.
The bill has nothing to do with the ethics commission or public employees. The house just doesn’t want to do anything meaningful to address sexual harassment and discrimination.
Comment by KA Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 4:43 pm
Good for the Illinois Chamber of Commerce for being more supportive of protecting workers from sexual harassment than the House Dems leadership… https://www.facebook.com/IL.Chamber.of.Commerce/posts/2239599962729357
Comment by Not surprised Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 5:00 pm
=== Requires employers, labor organizations and units of local government===
Add state agencies to this list, unless they already have a reporting requirement I am unaware of.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 5:24 pm
==- KA - Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 4:43 pm:
The bill has nothing to do with the ethics commission or public employees. The house just doesn’t want to do anything meaningful to address sexual harassment and discrimination. ==
Yes, it does impact the Ethics Commission and public employees.
Comment by Kudos Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 6:01 pm
Bullet point three presumably covers trans men and women, but to be clear, they should be protected.
Comment by Ashland Adam Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 7:40 pm