The Illinois Supreme Court ruled last year that merely allowing employees to continue work may not constitute consideration for unilateral modifications of employee handbooks. Here's how to deal with Doyle.
On July 9, 1999, the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois's determination that defendant/employer had violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 USC §2000e(k).
On June 17, 1999, the first district of the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
On May 24, 1999, the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on the basis of a statute of limitations violation.
On March 3, 1999, the Attorney General published an opinion on two issues: (1) whether the use of the terms "employment'' and "employed'' in the definitions of the phrases.
On February 8, 1999, the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of the United States District Court and held that a parent corporation can only be integrated with a subsidiary for purposes of determining whether the employer had a requisite number of employees for coverage by three federal anti-discrimination statutes.
On February 19, 1999, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court when it held that an employer may not unilaterally alter the terms of a contract to an employee's disadvantage in the absence of a reservation of the right by the employer to make such a change.
On December 31, 1998, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and circuit court, and answered a certified question by the circuit court, holding that a licensed attorney employed by a law firm cannot maintain a cause of action for retaliatory discharge.
On January 7, 1999, the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of the United States District Court finding that hours spent by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) "on-call'' was not considered performing work within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On December 3, 1998, the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ameritech, the defendant.
On November 12, 1998, the first district of the Illinois Appellate Court held that the city's failure to consider accommodations in its hiring decisions regarding the blind plaintiff did not rise to the level of unlawful discrimination under the Human Rights Act because the plaintiff was not considered handicapped within the meaning of the Act.
On September 8, 1998, the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's holding that the defendant, the North Knox School District.
On September 17, 1998, the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the defendant agency had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by retali retaliating against them after a claim was brought with the EEOC for wrongful discharge.
