Eye On Illinois: Another rule enters the books amid cloud of uncertainty

Although most readers might not work in Chicago, many may have duties that occasionally bring them inside the city, whether visiting clients or participating in a conference.

Anyone who checks that box will want to pay attention to the new Chicago Paid Time Off ordinance. According to a Nov. 9 release from Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office, the city now “guarantees up to five days of paid time off and five days of sick time for all of Chicago’s workers.”

The policy came to my attention via a Capitol Fax link to a TradeShowExecutive.com post expressing concern based on a reading of the ordinance that it applies to anyone who spends two hours on the clock in city limits in any two-week period, although the benefits of an hour of sick time and an hour of paid time off accrue once the 35th hour is worked.

Chicago’s Office of Labor Standards Education and Outreach indicated it will issue rules clarifying implementation, so it makes sense to withhold judgment pending further details. But one thing unlikely to change is the enforcement method: private right of action. In other words, there is no city official going around checking for compliance and writing citations. Rather, if an employee feels an employer broke one of the new rules, they are invited to file a civil lawsuit.

This inevitably will invite situations – as has happened frequently with other city and state policies – where a worker, perhaps emboldened by legal representation, seeks judicial intervention based on what might be considered a clerical error, such as failure to provide notice of the ordinance once a worker reaches two hours.

Much of the litigation over the Biometric Information Privacy Act has centered around whether businesses are subject to financial penalties even if a worker or patron cannot demonstrate a legal injury, such as identity theft, so long as they can show the alleged offender didn’t have the requisite policies in place or consent on file.

Lawyers in other aspects of civil law, such as a Chicago ordinance dictating what information landlords must provide tenants when signing a lease, have argued the same principles should apply to any sort of statutory violation. Their defense counterparts say reversible financial damages don’t (or at least shouldn’t) carry the same legal weight as irreplaceable biometric identifiers like fingerprints and voice patterns.

Altogether the result is a court system that can’t always keep up with all the lawsuits. It’s common for a judge to stay certain proceedings pending the outcome of a different action in some other tier of the legal system.

When the rules are clear, businesses should comply. But lawmakers too often enact murky policies and leave courts to sort the details.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on Twitter @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.