Developments in Illinois Wage and Benefit Claims

Two recent items of note regarding the failure to pay accrued wages and benefits in Illinois.

In the first, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, recently addressed whether  former employee may pursue a claim arising out of the former employer’s failure to pay accrued wages and/or  vacation pay  under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (820 ILCS 115/1 et seq.) with both the Illinois Department of Labor and the Circuit Court.  In an opinion issued on March 11, 2015, the court said “yes.”  Krause v. USA Docufinish, 2015 IL APP (3d) 130585.

In the second, Cook County has adopted the Cook County Wage Theft Ordinance, which will become effective on May 1, 2015.  This ordinance provides that, if an employer or substantial owner  admits or is found liable – by either a court or an administrative agency — for the repeated or willful failure to pay wages/benefits, anytime within the past 5 years,  in violation of any federal and/or state wage laws (including the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and/or minimum wage laws), the employer/owner may be (a) barred from county contracting, (b) deemed ineligible for a county business license, and/or (c) deemed ineligible for any county property tax incentives.  Cook County Wage Theft Ordinance

Lesson: The sanctions for the failure to pay wages and accured benefits may be severe.

DISCLAIMER:  This is not legal advice or advertising and should not be construed as such.  It is posted for informational purposes only

New Federal DBE Rules

Effective November 4, 2014,  US DOT amended the DBE (Disadvantaged Business Enterprise) program regulations to: (1) Revise the uniform certification application and reporting forms, create a uniform personal net worth form, and collect data on the percentage of DBEs in each state; (2) strengthen certification-related program provisions including among other things,  summary suspensions under specified circumstances; and (3) modify several other provisions relating to overall goal setting, good faith efforts, transit vehicle manufacturers, and counting for trucking companies.  The new rules can be retrieved here.

New Illinois Supreme Court Case re Public Construction Bonds

The Illinois Supreme Court has held that, pursuant to the Bond Act,  a public construction bond is deemed to include both payment and performance obligations even if the bond itself is silent.   The case is LAKE COUNTY GRADING COMPANY, LLC, Appellee, v. THE VILLAGE OF ANTIOCH, Appellant, Opinion filed October 17, 2014.  http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2014/115805.pdf

Not-For-Profit Exception to the Minimum Wage Executive Order for Chicago City Contractors

In early September of 2014, Mayor Rahm Emanuel issued an Executive Order (No. 2014-1) mandating that all City concessionaires, contractors, and their subcontractors pay their staff members, who work on City contracts or concessions, a minimum wage of at least $13.00 per hour in salary or, if they receive gratuities, in salary plus gratuities.  There is a significant and important exception — 501(c)(3) not-for-profits.  The order may be viewed here.

City of Chicago’s Regulations for Small Business/Veterans JV Bid Incentives

The City of Chicago has published the regulations for its Small Business/Veterans JV Bid Incentive program.  To view the regulations, click here.

Why business people should not use the word “partner” unless they really mean to be “partners.”

In the last few years, more and more business people have begun to refer to other business people or companies with whom they do business as their “partners,” even if they don’t mean to be “partners” in the legal sense (e.g. becoming each other’s fiduciaries and sharing profits, losses, and liabilities).

Why is this an issue?  Here’s the hypothetical:  One fateful day, you and your “partner” fall out.  He/she doesn’t take that very well and drags you into court alleging that, by using the term “partner,” he/she is, in fact, your legal partner with all of the attending legal rights of a partner.  “Oh, no,” you argue to the judge.  We didn’t really mean to be “partners” as the law defines “partners,” but “partners” as the business community uses that term.   Do you think your argument will prevail?   Maybe it will, maybe it won’t.   But, absent settlement, resolution of that fact question may take years and years of litigation, discovery, appeals, and the attendant attorneys’ fees and costs.   See the First District’s recent opinion in Souza v. Tradelink, issued on July 14, 2014.  In that case, which has already been pending for three years, the appellate court (with one justice dissenting) has remanded the case to the trial court for more proceedings to determine this “fact question.”

If you do not intend to be legal “partners” (i.e. two or more persons joining together to pursue a business for profit), maybe you shouldn’t use that word.  If you do, you may want to run it by your lawyers first.

Disclaimer:  This information is not intended to be legal advice and should not be construed as such.

City of Chicago Small Business/Veteran-Owned Business Bidding Preference

On June 25, 2014, Chicago City Council approved an ordinance establishing a small business/veteran-owned business bid-incentive preference for City contracts.  To view the ordinance, click here.

Succinct Discussion of Insurance Company’s Duty to Defend

The First District of the Illinois Appellate Court has issued a Rule 23 (i.e., unpublished) opinion that lays out, rather succinctly, all of the legal rules and standards regarding an insurance company’s duty to defend.  The case is FCCI INSURANCE COMPANY v. WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, 2014 IL App (1st) 131598-U.

Illinois Statute of Limitations for Damages Purportedly Arising Out of Temporary Components Used in Construction Projects

If a supplier or subcontractor supplies a temporary component during a construction project, is the statute of limitations:

1. four years as set forth in Section 13-214(a) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/13-214(a)) relating to improvements to real property or
2. five years as set forth in Section 13-205 (735 ILCS 5/13-205) relating generally to actions for damage to real property?

In a split decision filed on April 23, 2014, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, decided that the four-year limitations period should apply.  In reaching that decision, the court noted that a temporary installation may be an “integral part of the entire operation” and further noted that it would be incongruous for the general contractor to be protected by the four-year statute whereas the supplier of a temporary installation used by the general contractor would be subject to the longer five-year statute.

The dissent stated that the temporary installation was not an “improvement to real property” as required by Section 13-214(a) and, therefore, that the longer five-year limitations period of Section 13-205 should control.

The case is Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Rockford Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., 2014 IL App (2d) 130566.

 

DISCLAIMER:  This is not legal advice and should not be construed as such.  It is posted for informational purposes only.

 

Illinios FOIA and the Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees

In Peoples Law Office v. the Department of Corrections, 2014 IL  App (1st) 130161, issued this week, the First District held that if an Illinois FOIA request is pursued through the courts and the plaintiff wins, but did not have to pay an outside lawyer to pursue the case, the plaintiff may not recover any attorneys’ fees under the Illinois FOIA statute.  So, if the action is pursued pro se or by in-house counsel, who is not separately paid to bring the action, attorneys’ fees will not be awarded.  On the other hand, the court also held that if the plaintiff prevailed, by settlement or otherwise, prior to judgment, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees if there were any.

 

This is not legal advice and should not be construed as such.