Missouri Supreme Court Opens New Door To LGBTQ Protections Under The Missouri Human Rights Act

Contributed by Brian Wacker, March 1, 2019

gavel and scales of justice

In a pair of rulings handed down on Tuesday, the Missouri Supreme Court expanded the reach of the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) to encompass, under certain circumstances, LGBTQ individuals and additional types of evidence that can support MHRA discrimination and retaliation claims. Both cases – Lampley, et al v. Missouri Comm’n on Human Rights, et al and R.M.A., et al v. Blue Springs R-IV Sch. Dist., et al – should have a significant impact on employers in Missouri and how they evaluate the risks of employment actions against LGBTQ individuals moving forward.

By its text, the MHRA makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate or retaliate against an employee with respect to compensation, terms of employment, or privileges of employment because of that employee’s race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, or sex. The MHRA does not expressly prohibit discrimination or retaliation based on an employee’s sexual orientation. Missouri courts have interpreted the MHRA accordingly.

In Lampley, the complaining employee was gay, but his sexual orientation was not the issue presented to the court. Instead, the plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination complaining that his employer, the Missouri Department of Social Services, subjected him to sex discrimination and retaliation, which is prohibited under the MHRA. The plaintiff asserted he was subjected to sex discrimination and harassment at work because “he does not exhibit the stereotypical attributes of how a male should appear and behave” and that other similarly-situated co-workers (i.e., non-gay co-workers who exhibited stereotypical attributes) were treated differently.  He also complained that he received lower performance evaluations at work as retaliation for his complaints about the alleged harassment. His co-worker and co-plaintiff also filed a Charge of Discrimination, complaining that she was discriminated against based on her association with him. 

The court in Lampley distinguished claims of discrimination based on sex-based characteristics from discrimination based on sexual orientation.  According to the court, the plaintiff’s sexual orientation was “merely incidental” to his sex discrimination complaint. Since the plaintiff did not actually allege he was discriminated against based on his sexual orientation, he could pursue his claims under the MHRA since “stereotyping” can give rise to an inference of discrimination against a member of a protected class, and is considered an unlawful hiring practice by the Commission’s own regulations. 

Whether intended or not, it is easy to see that the court’s ruling in Lampley now provides LGBTQ employees (and their attorneys) a clearer path to pursue discrimination and retaliation claims under state law, framing their claims as sex-based rather than sexual orientation-based. This ruling, coupled with the court’s contemporaneous ruling in R.M.A., in which the court vacated a lower court’s dismissal of a transgender student’s MHRA sex discrimination claim against his school for refusing him access to the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms, constitutes a clear victory for LGBTQ advocates.   

The Missouri Supreme Court sent a message on Tuesday with regard to LGBTQ rights. Employers in Missouri should take heed. 

Exit Stage Left –Tips for When a Key Employee Moves to a Competitor

 Contributed by Michael J. Faley, February 27, 2019

As with most things in life, you should hope for the best, but plan for the worst in the event that a valued employee leaves to join a competitor. This post contains some helpful tips to keep in mind following such a move by a key employee.

I.   Stay On Good Terms With The Former Employee Whenever Possible

Once your employee announces that he or she is making the jump to a competitor, ending the relationship on amicable terms can benefit you down the road. It may very well turn out that the employee’s experience and knowledge of past or ongoing projects become critical to the resolution of a future problem or dispute. For that reason, among many others, it is better to remain civil despite the negative feelings that frequently percolate in these kinds of situations.

II.   Take Action When Things Get Ugly

Of course, though you may try, it is not always possible to maintain an amicable relationship with a former employee. Most of the time, you will simply move on with business as usual. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon that a former employee attempts to pack up and take your business to the new company. This frequently takes the form of a soon-to-be former employee copying documents and computer files containing the likes of confidential client information or records concerning former and ongoing projects. If this occurs to you, it is time for action. 

The law provides you with several methods of redress to prevent other businesses from obtaining an unfair competitive advantage where a former employee has taken proprietary information. Here are some of the most common lines of defense.

  • A Well Drafted Employment Agreement
employment contract document form with pen

An artfully crafted employment agreement with a covenant not to compete can provide the basis for a breach of contract claim against the former employee. Many employment agreements also prohibit solicitation of clients or taking confidential information. An effective employment agreement is a great tool to prevent a former employee from unfairly poaching your business.

  • The Duty of Loyalty

When it comes to high-ranking employees, always remember that the soon-to-be ex-employee has a continuing duty of loyalty while working for your company. Almost certainly, the former employee will have breached that duty if he or she surreptitiously copied confidential records and computer files during employment.

  • Trade Secret Laws

It is also illegal to misappropriate trade secrets. For instance, the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (765 ILCS 1065/2) makes it unlawful for the former employee or their new company to misappropriate your “technical” information, “data,” “methods,” “techniques,” “drawings,” and other confidential information that are sufficiently secret to give you a competitive advantage.

  • Copyright Laws

Copyright laws may further help to protect your business interests. Copyright tends to be particularly important for businesses involved in artistic endeavors, architecture, and software development among many other fields that produce original works of authorship. Usually, the underlying copyright in any work generated for your company by the employee within the scope of his employment will belong to the company. Such laws can, for example, help stop a former employee from taking copyrighted project plans and using them to replace you on a client’s project or passing off the material in a portfolio as their own. Because registration of the work with the U.S. Copyright Office (www.copyright.gov) is required to file a lawsuit for infringement, see 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), and because registration also provides the opportunity for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, we recommend registering the copyright in your valuable works and include copyright notice on each of the works involved (e.g., for works first published in 2019, acceptable copyright notice would read “©2019″).

  • Computer Records

Finally, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C.A. §1030, is a vital law that protects you from theft and destruction of information stored on your company’s computer system. In the event your company sustains damage or loss due to a CFAA violation, you may be able to maintain a lawsuit to prohibit the former employee from using the illegally obtained computer files. Damages may also be available under the CFAA. As a measure of cautious practice, you should have your information technology staff check all computer systems after the employee departs.

Through the use of the foregoing business and legal tools, you should be able to protect your business interests in the event those interests are threatened by illicit means. Your attorney will usually start by writing your former employee and/or the new company a “cease-and-desist letter.” However, depending on the urgency of the matter, events may require an immediate lawsuit to enjoin the former employee and/or their new employer from acting in a way detrimental to your interests.

III.           Remember the Flip Side When You Are Hiring

Similar concerns exist when you are on the hunt for new talent. Regarding the recruitment process, you should always:

· Remember that the employee owes a continuing duty of loyalty to his or her current employer for the entire duration of employment.

· Inquire whether the prospective employee may be subject to any post-employment restrictions contained in an employment agreement.

· Take the time to understand whose rights may be implicated by any potentially proprietary information gleaned from the new employee, and refrain from acting upon questionable information.

In short, while a valuable new employee can certainly lead to new business opportunities for your company, you should always act carefully to avoid potential exposure to the types of litigation discussed above. 

Critical Illinois Prevailing Wage Law Change Impacting Contractors

Contributed by Jeffrey A. Risch, February 26, 2019

www.illinoisprevailingwage.com

You may not remember… in 2013, then Governor Quinn signed into law an amendment to Illinois’ Prevailing Wage Act (IPWA) which sort of redefined what the PREVAILING WAGE RATE meant by adding one little word.  Effective January 1, 2014, the IPWA defined “general prevailing rate of hourly wages” as hourly cash wages plus ANNUALIZED fringe benefits.  By inserting the word ANNUALIZED, the law arguably changed. 

For years, many contractors paid the prevailing wage fringe benefits as cash sums added to the employee paycheck based on prevailing wage hours only. Some contractors established bona fide defined contribution plans that provide 100% immediate vesting of the prevailing wage fringe benefit (in whole or in part); usually in the form of health/welfare or retirement savings. The advantages for the worker are obvious. The money is solely and exclusively in the control of the worker to do with it however they deem appropriate. In exchange for such a rich and rewarding benefit, some plans specifically limit the contribution to only those hours actually worked on “public works projects” (aka prevailing wage projects).

Well… in 2013, Big Labor went to the Illinois Legislature and successfully lobbied for the addition of the term “annualized”. Therefore, effective for all work performed on January 1, 2014 and thereafter, the Illinois Department of Labor can audit fringe benefit contributions made under a defined contribution plan, or declared by a contractor in its certified transcripts of payroll, and will calculate those contributions over all hours worked in a given period of time.

To establish the proper hourly calculation for allowable fringe benefits, contractors are expected to divide the total amount they contribute to a bona fide fringe benefit plan by the total of all hours worked (including non-prevailing wage projects). According to the Illinois Department of Labor, a contractor cannot exclusively take the hours worked and contributions made on public works/prevailing wage jobs to comply with the hourly fringe benefit component.  An example used by the Illinois Department of Labor includes: If a contractor contributes $520 per month for single insurance coverage, and the employee works 2080 hours (40 x 52 weeks), then the effective annual contribution rate is determined by dividing $6,240 ($520 x 12) by 2080 which equals $3.00 per hour. If the health and welfare portion of the prevailing wage is $5.05 per hour, the contractor can take a credit of $3.00 per hour and must pay $2.05 ($5.05-$3.00) additional on the hourly base wage.  The same formula will be applied to Pension, Annuity, 401(k) plans, Training, and Vacation in some localities that are funded by the contractor.

What’s remarkable is that the annualization of fringe benefits has been part of the federal prevailing wage law under Davis-Bacon & Related Acts (DBRA) for years. However, the United States Department of Labor has always allowed contractors to pay the fringe benefit component based on prevailing wage hours worked only provided the monies went directly and immediately to the worker. The Illinois Department of Labor could adopt a similar approach. However, Big Labor will certainly do everything it can to ensure that does not happen. 

What does this actually mean?

The IPWA allows for certain fringe benefits (Health and Welfare, Pension/Annuity, US DOL Training, and Vacation in some localities) to be considered in establishing a prevailing wage rate.  The prevailing wage rate includes an HOURLY base portion and a FRINGE BENEFIT portion. Contractors may choose to pay the entire prevailing wage rate in the base hourly rate component (and not take a credit for fringe benefits paid), or they may choose to take credit for certain allowed fringe benefits.  If a contractor does not pay any allowable fringe benefit or just a portion of it, then according to the Illinois Department of Labor, the difference must be made up in the hourly base wage rate in order to comply with this ANNUALIZATION component to the law. Alternatively, all fringe benefit contributions must be determined by dividing the TOTAL fringe benefit payout with ALL HOURS worked. Therefore, the fringe benefit contribution would be diluted in proportion to the non-prevailing wage hours worked by the employee.

So… while this is yesterday’s news, the Illinois Department of Labor under Governor Rauner was not extraordinarily aggressive on this annualization issue.  However, under new leadership, contractors should recognize that the Illinois Department of Labor is actively enforcing the annualization component of the law.  And, with a 5 year statute of limitations period, bad habits established or just plain ignorance of the law that may have went unchecked under the Rauner administration will cost you if you are not fully and completely in compliance with Illinois’ annualization obligation. 

BOTTOM LINE:  If you are performing public work in Illinois, you need to intimately understand Illinois’ prevailing wage law and the many pitfalls that exist under it. The stakes for not knowing or understanding how the Illinois Department of Labor views certain issues are just too high. 

The Importance of Documenting the Failure to Document

Contributed by Suzannah Wilson Overholt, February 20, 2019

Doctor, medical charts

One of the biggest challenges faced by health care providers is ensuring proper documentation in patient charts. Shortcomings in charting can result in lost revenue due to third party payers’ assigning a lower CPT code or refusing to pay a claim. Even worse, poor charting may prompt an equally poor survey result. 

Convincing employees to stay on top of charting can be difficult and frustrating but taking appropriate action against those who fail to do so and documenting that action is critical. A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin illustrates the manner in which an employee’s failure to chart should be properly documented through the disciplinary process, and how such effective documentation may be used to defend against claims for discrimination and/or wrongful termination.

In Blumentritt v. Mayo Clinic Health System – Franciscan Healthcare, Inc. (W.D. Wis. Feb. 6, 2019), the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Mayo Clinic due, in part, to its well-documented history of disciplinary action against Mr. Blumentritt for his failure to complete charting in a timely manner. The following best practices were used by the Mayo Clinic:

  • Charts were audited for completeness;
  • When an audit revealed an employee with a significant number of incomplete charts, the supervisor had a coaching session with the employee and established clear, achievable goals for the employee;
  • The supervisor monitored the employee and, when he failed to meet the goals, gave him a performance counseling;
  • The supervisor took the employee off of performance counseling and provided positive feedback for his accomplishment when he improved;
  • When the employee backslid, the supervisor gave him an improvement plan with specific objectives and due dates for achieving those objectives, as well as a warning that failure to complete documentation according to established policies or adhere to the timeline would result in termination;
  • The supervisor revised the timeline for the improvement plan when the supervisor’s schedule interfered with the deadlines;
  • When another audit revealed the employee again failed to complete patient charts, the supervisor gave the employee a last chance warning; and
  • When a follow up audit revealed that the employee’s charting was incomplete and the employee failed to correct the problem after being given an opportunity to do so, he was terminated.

The one weakness in the process appears to have been the Mayo Clinic’s failure to take action against Mr. Blumentritt when he did not meet the deadlines set in the performance improvement plan.  On the flip side, a real strength is that the Mayo Clinic did not restart the disciplinary process when the employee backslid, and instead resumed at an appropriate level given the prior infractions. The well-documented disciplinary measures against Mr. Blumentritt were critical to the Mayo Clinic’s ability to defend against his claim that he was terminated because he was a gay male. 

The takeaways from this decision are to act on audit results, document action taken, follow through, and keep the pressure on the employee to perform. (Also worth noting is that the court did not question the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Comm. Coll. that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

Job Posting and Ban the Box

Contributed by Mike Wong, February 18, 2019

job application on a laptop screen

Over 33 states and 150 cities, counties and municipalities have enacted Ban-the Box laws that prohibit employers from asking about an applicant’s criminal record or criminal history prior to the applicant being selected for an interview or, if there is no interview, prior to a conditional offer of employment.

But did you know that Ban-the-Box laws can also impact your job posting or advertisement?

Yes, these laws can, and much like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Ban the Box laws are being used by “professional plaintiffs” to go after employers for technical violations.

For example, New Jersey, New York City, Washington and Wisconsin’s Ban the Box laws specifically prohibit employers from asking applicants about their criminal history before making a job offer – including in job postings.  In those jurisdictions, having job postings or advertisements that state: “background check is required,” “clean criminal history,” “no felons,” “no criminal background,” or any other language that expresses any limitation in the hiring of an individual, directly or indirectly, based on his or her arrest or criminal background violate the law.

While the majority of Ban the Box laws do not expressly include prohibitions of such language in job postings and advertisements, employers now have potential exposure if they decide to include language of that kind. For example, an applicant could argue that while a state or local law does not expressly prohibit using language regarding criminal history in a job positing or advertisement, by doing so the employer is, in essence, unlawfully seeking criminal history information from job candidates. Additionally, if the state or local law prohibits discrimination against individuals with arrest records, the same legal argument the EEOC uses for Title VII discrimination claims based on arrests or convictions could be used – i.e., that the use of arrest records has a disparate impact on individuals of certain protected classes by eliminating, for example, more African American or Hispanic applicants as compared to applicants outside those groups.

Thus, while Ban the Box seems pretty straightforward, it is important to understand the details of each state and local law that may apply to your business. Moreover, it is important to review you job postings, advertisements and recruiting materials to make sure that they are up to date and not creating potential liability for you.

Flu Season: Common Questions From Employers

Contributed by Debra Mastrian, February 13, 2019

sick man lying in bed and thinking about all the work that piles up on his desk

The flu virus circulates all year round, although according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), flu activity historically peaks in February. Here are a couple of flu-related questions frequently asked by employers:

Is an employee entitled to FMLA for absences due to the flu?

Maybe. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides covered employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during a 12 month period if the employee has a “serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform” his or her job.  A serious health condition is an illness that involves either inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider.  Inpatient care is typically an overnight stay in a health care facility.  Continuing treatment is more complex but is generally a period of incapacity of more than three consecutive full calendar days and any subsequent treatment or period of incapacity that also involves either (1) treatment or consultation with a health care provider two or more times within 30 days of the initial incapacitation or (2) treatment or consultation with a health care provider at least once and a regimen of continuing treatment under the supervision of the healthcare provider. A “regimen of continuing treatment” includes prescription medication, even without a follow-up medical appointment.  29 C.F.R. § 825.115.  Over the counter medications (aspirin, flu medicine), bed rest and fluids or other treatment that may be initiated without the direction of a health care provider, do not qualify as a “regimen of continuing treatment.” 

So, while an employee with a typical case of the flu who recovers with only self-care generally does not qualify for FMLA leave, extenuating circumstances can trigger coverage. It is important to focus not on the name of the illness—flu—but rather on the facts of the particular situation to determine whether an illness is a “serious health condition” as defined by the FMLA. When an employee calls in sick with the flu and is absent more than three consecutive days, the cautious approach is to send the employee an FMLA medical certification form.  It is risky to deny FMLA leave without first taking steps to determine whether the absence qualifies for FMLA protection.  If the employee returns the completed medical certification, the employer can then assess whether the condition is a “serious health condition.”  (Note:  Even if FMLA does not apply, an employee may be entitled to leave under state or local sick leave laws, or the employer’s sick leave or paid time off policies. Depending on the circumstance, an employer may also need to examine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (ADA), applies.) 

Can an employee who is exhibiting flu symptoms at work be sent home?

Yes, an employee who is exhibiting flu-like symptoms at work (e.g., fever, excessive coughing, vomiting, chills, etc.) can be sent home (or instructed not to come to work). Employers have the right to manage their workforce.  This includes excluding potentially infectious employees, even if they want to work. Preventing the spread of contagious illness is a legitimate concern for employers. Employers can send sick employees home in an effort to maintain a safe and healthy workplace. (Note: OSHA requires all employers to maintain a safe and healthy workplace.) 

Employers should, however, be consistent and fair in how they handle each situation. This is important for employee morale and to avoid legal claims (e.g., allegations of discrimination). Adopting an infectious disease policy will give employees and managers guidance on how to handle these situations.

ON THE HORIZON: Increase in Illinois Minimum Wage and Damages – a Death Knell for Illinois Employers?

Contributed by Mike Wong and Sara Zorich, February 12, 2019

The changes anticipated after the Illinois elections are steadily moving forward. On Thursday, February 8, 2019, the Senate passed Senate Bill 0001 (SB0001).  SB0001 has now moved on to the House of Representatives and been assigned to the Labor & Commerce Committee. The word is that the House of Representatives is looking to vote on this within the next week and if passed move it on to the Governor for signature within the next two weeks.  With the change in administrations, it is safe to say that it is only a matter of time before SB0001, or another bill increasing the minimum wage, is passed and signed into law. The only questions left will be how fast minimum wage will be increased and what additional changes will the legislation include.

SB0001 provides for the following steady increase in the state minimum wage:

  • January 1, 2020 – Increase from $8.25 to $9.25 (increase of $1.00)

Six months later

  • July 1, 2020 – Increase from $9.25 to $10.00 (Increase of $0.75)

Six months later

  • January 1, 2021 – Increase from $10.00 to $11.00 (Increase of $1.00)

One year later…

  • January 1, 2022 – Increase from $11.00 to $12.00 (Increase of $1.00)

One year later…

  • January 1, 2023 – Increase from $12.00 to $13.00 (Increase of $1.00)

One year later…

  • January 1, 2024 – Increase from $13.00 to $14.00 (Increase of $1.00)

One year later…

  • January 1, 2025 – Increase from $14.00 to $15.00 (Increase of $1.00)
MINIMUM WAGE CONCEPT

While this is anticipated, the changes that SB0001 proposes with respect to damages under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) were not expected and are extremely punitive in nature.

First and foremost, it increases the damages available to employees.  Currently, the IMWL provides that that an employee is entitled to (1) the underpayment or unpaid wages, (2) 2% of the underpayment for each month following the date wages should have been paid, and (3) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Under the SB0001, it is proposed that when an employer violates the IMWL, an employee will be entitled to THREE TIMES (3X) the amount of the underpayment and 5% of the underpayments for each month following the date it should have been paid (an increase of 3%), as well as their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Additionally, SB0001 provides for two additional penalties payable to the Illinois Department of Labor’s Wage Theft Enforcement Fund. The first is a $1,500 penalty for a violation of the IMWL and the second is a $100 penalty for each employee that an employer fails to keep “true and accurate” payroll records for.  

These changes are incredibly punitive measures that are sure to be the end of some businesses if they are put into law, as employers will be held strictly liable and subject to these punishments, even if the underpayment is the result of an honest mistake or good faith legal argument (i.e. misclassification of an independent contractor).

The following is an example of the potential damages if an employer underpaid 100 employees $10 each month for 3 years. Even if the underpayment is the result of a completely unintentional and inadvertent error (i.e. employee fails to report working time that equals $10 or there is an inadvertent and accidental payroll error), an employer would be subject to the same damages as an employer who intentionally and willfully refused to pay an employee their earned wages, which are as follows: 

  • SB0001 Proposed IMWL Damages:
    • Treble damages ($10 per month x 12 months x 3 years = $360 unpaid multiplied by 3) = $1,080 per employee or $108,000 for all 100 employees
    • 5% of underpayments for each month following the date it should have been paid would equal $315.00 per employee or $31,500 for all 100 employees (e.g.  underpayments started January 2018 through December 2021 and were paid in December 2021)(NOTE: the 5% interest continues to accrue until there is a judgment in the matter which could take additional months or years depending on the length of the litigation)
    • Total Cost to Employer under proposed IMWL:
      • $1,395.00 for just one employee for a $360 underpayment; or $139,500.00 for 100 employees for a $36,000 underpayment; plus
      • Employees’ attorney’s fees and costs; plus
      • Additional penalties from IL-DOL (including $100 per employee for failing to keep true and accurate time records, $1,500 fine per violation and up to 20% of the total underpayment when violation was willful, repeated or with reckless disregard to the IMWL)

What may not have been considered by the legislature though, is the potential impact with the damages available under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) and federal Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) damages. Under the FLSA, an employee can argue for liquidated damages equal to the amount of the underpayment.  Employers typically argue that employees are not entitled to both the liquidated damages under the FLSA and interest under the IMWL, as the FLSA provides that the liquidated damages covers any interest that could be owed.  However, with proposed damages under the IMWL, we anticipate plaintiffs will argue that an employee is entitled to not just treble damages and interest under the IMWL, but also the liquidated damages under the FLSA increasing the proposed damages an employee could recover from not just the underpayment, but FOUR times the amount of the underpayment, plus 5% of underpayments for each month following the date it should have been paid and attorney’s fees and costs.

So using the example above, if the employee was able to also recover the FLSA liquidated damages in addition to those purposed by the amended IMWL, the employer could be subject to a total cost of:

  • FLSA and SB0001 proposed IMWL damages:
    • $1,755.00 for just one employee for a $360 underpayment; or $175,500.00 for 100 employees for a $36,000 underpayment; plus
    • Employees’ attorney’s fees and costs; plus
    • Additional penalties from IL-DOL (including $100 per employee for failing to keep true and accurate time records, $1,500 fine per violation and up to 20% of the total underpayment when violation was willful, repeated or with reckless disregard to the IMWL)

Additionally, due to the increased interest and attorney’s fees and costs, it is anticipated that plaintiffs and plaintiff attorneys will be less inclined to try and amicably resolve these types of cases resulting in more lawsuits and longer lawsuits. Indeed, it is not unusual for a lawsuit to take 3 to 5 years from the beginning through trial, meaning that interest alone could balloon from $315 to $963 after 3 years or $1,395 after five years under the above example raising the potential total damages as follows:

These figures do not include the attorney’s fees and costs sought by a plaintiff, which after 3-5 years of litigation would likely easily be a six figure number in addition to the damages identified in the chart above for an unintentional and inadvertent error in which an employee(s) was underpaid by $360.00 over a three year period.

As you can see, there are serious changes and consequences under the current proposed changes to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law that go a lot deeper than simply increasing the minimum wage.  Make sure you are aware of these changes and your pay practices are in compliance as the cost of a wage and hour lawsuit are about to get drastically worse.  Furthermore, if you are facing a wage and hour lawsuit or claim, make sure that you consult with experienced labor and employment law counsel who are aware of these changes as these changes will directly impact your defenses and strategies in addressing wage and hour lawsuits and claims.