The Workplace Report with Ancel Glink

You may have heard that with last month’s revisions to the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, the law legalizing cannabis in Illinois, employers can now withdraw a job offer if a job applicant tests positive for cannabis. While we understand why some attorneys are interpreting the changes to the law that way, we disagree with it. It is our position that once the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act goes into effect next month employers should not withdraw a job offer solely because an applicant tests positive for cannabis.  The confusion lies with the amendments to section 10-50(e) of the Act, which now reads:  “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create or imply a cause of action for any person against an employer for: (1) actions taken pursuant to an employer’s reasonable workplace drug policy, including but not limited to subjecting an employee or applicant to reasonable drug and alcohol testing, reasonable and nondiscriminatory random drug testing, and discipline...

Recently the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals out of Chicago, in Brigid Ford v. Marion County Sheriff’s Office , ruled in favor of the Marion County Sheriff’s Department, holding that demoting an employee can be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA . Plaintiff, Brigid Forbes, was a deputy sheriff in Marion County when she was involved in a car accident on duty which severely injured her hand. After a year on light duty, her doctor reported that she would never fully recover the use of that hand, always have some degree of pain and would have permanent restrictions which would prevent her from performing all the essential functions of her job as a deputy sheriff. The Sheriff’s HR Department met with the plaintiff and offered her three choices, to resign, quit or be demoted to a job that she could perform. The demoted position paid less than she was currently making. The plaintiff chose demotion and the parties worked out reasonable accommodations for her chronic pain and relate...

Jingle bells, jingle bells, a lawsuit on its way! Alcohol, colleagues, and those holiday work parties are the perfect ingredients for unwanted employer liability and litigation. Personal injury and sexual harassment claims are merely examples of what might arise from a holiday work party. Alcohol is often a staple at holiday parties, but; an employer’s liability as a result of overindulgence may depend on whether attendance at the party is mandatory.  In  Stephenson v. Universal Metrics, Inc. , a motorist’s estate attempted to hold an employer liable after its employee became drunk at a work-sponsored function and, on his way home, killed both himself and another motorist.  Luckily for the employer, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held the employer was immune from liability under Wis. Stat. § 125.035. Similarly, in  Saylesv. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.  plaintiff was permanently injured in a two-car accident after he was struck by one of defendant’s empl...

In the flurry of bills passed in last Spring’s legislative session, one that fell under the radar was the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (codified at 820 ILCS 42/1, et seq.).  The Act attempts to regulate AI interviewing programs that employers are increasingly using. According to TechRepublic, 29% of employers regularly use some form of AI . The Act requires employers to: Notify each job applicant before the interview that AI may be used to analyze the applicant’s video interview and consider the applicant’s fitness for the position. Provide each job applicant with information before the interview explaining how the AI works and how it evaluates applicants. Obtain consent from the job applicant before the interview for the use of the AI program. The law leaves a lot of questions unanswered. First, what are the consequences if an employer fails to comply with this law? It says nothing about the damages or penalties that will be assessed against an e...