Banking and Business Monthly – February 2023

Steven A. Migala • February 3, 2023

Illinois Legislature Passes Paid Leave for All Workers Act

A man in a suit and tie is writing in a notebook.


On January 10, 2023, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill 208, known as the Paid Leave for All Workers Act (“Act”). The legislation has been sent to Governor Pritzker, who said he is looking forward to signing it. Once signed, beginning January 1, 2024, the Act would require nearly all Illinois employers to provide employees with up to 40 hours of paid leave per 12-month period, to be used for any purpose.

 

Covered Employers and Employees

 

The Act applies to most employers in Illinois, including state and local governments (except school districts and park districts), with a few limited exceptions. Among the exceptions are employers covered by a municipal or county ordinance that requires employers to provide any form of paid leave to their employees, such as the Chicago Paid Sick Leave and Cook County Earned Sick Leave Ordinances.

 

The Act covers all employees with the following exceptions:

 

  • Employees covered under the federal Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act or the Railway Labor Act.
  • Temporary college or university student-employees.
  • Certain short-term employees of an institution of higher learning.
  • Employees working in the construction industry who are covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”).
  • Employees who are covered by a bona fide CBA with an employer that provides services nationally and internationally of delivery, pickup, and transportation of parcels, documents, and freight.

 

Regarding CBAs generally, the Act does not cover employees if the CBA is in effect on January 1, 2024. After that date, the Act’s paid leave requirements will apply unless the CBA contains a clear and unambiguous waiver.

 

Amount of Leave

 

Employees are entitled to earn and use up to a minimum of 40 hours of paid leave per 12-month period (which can be any 12-month period designated by the employer at the time of hire, such as a calendar year or a year that begins with the employee’s hire date). Employers can either (a) require accrual over time (and permit “carryover”), or (b) can frontload the leave (and require “use it or lose it”). Each choice is described below.

 

For employers opting for the accrual method, employees accrue 1 hour of paid leave for every 40 hours worked, up to 40 hours of paid leave during the designated 12-month period. Exempt employees generally earn 1 hour of paid leave per week. Employees must be permitted to “carryover” accrued but unused leave into the next 12-month period. However, employers are not required to permit employees to use more than 40 hours of paid leave during any one 12-month period. Employers must provide notice of the amount of leave accrued or used upon employee request. For employers electing to front load the leave, avoid carryover and require employees to “use it or lose it,” employers can make available the 40 hours of paid leave on the first day of the 12-month period.

 

Using Paid Leave

 

Employees may use their paid leave after they have completed 90 calendar days of employment or March 31, 2024, whichever is later. Employees can be required to use leave in reasonable minimum increments of no more than 2 hours per day. Significantly, the Act allows employees to use paid leave for any reason of their choosing. Employers would be unable to require employees to provide a reason for the leave or documentation or certification as proof of the leave. Regarding notice to be provided by employees to employers, the Act distinguishes between foreseeable and unforeseeable leave. Employers may require employees to provide 7 calendar days’ notice before the foreseeable leave is to begin. For unforeseeable leave, employees can be required to provide notice as soon as is practicable after the employee is aware of the need for leave.

 

No Payout On Termination

 

Importantly, employers are not required to pay out accrued leave under the Act upon employment termination. Compare this to other accrued and unused PTO or vacation time, which must be paid out on termination of employment. Thus, an employer may wish to track the Act’s leave separately from leave under a vacation or PTO policy, in order to reduce the risk that employees would be entitled to a payout of unused leave accrued under the Act upon termination of employment. Further guidance from the Illinois Department of Labor (“IDOL”) is expected on this issue before the Act’s effective date.

 

As a result of the Act, employers should (1) determine whether the Act applies to them and their employees, (2) watch the IDOL for its publication of notice posters and other guidance, and (3) compare current leave policies with the Act’s requirements, including adopting or modifying a paid leave policy consistent with the Act and which also resolves those matters which the Act leaves to employers. For further inquiries or questions, please contact me at smigala@lavellelaw.com or at (847) 705-7555.

More News & Resources

Lavelle Law News and Events

The Junk Fee Ban Act and pricing transparency legislation.
By Sarah J. Reusché and Jacob Rotolo April 23, 2025
If enacted, the Junk Fee Ban Act would protect consumers from hidden fees and promote fair business practices in Illinois. While there has yet to be legislation in the proposed Junk Fee Ban Act that excludes dealerships, it will be important to look for future updates on this bill, as Illinois is quickly becoming a hub for vehicle innovation and automotive plant expansion.
Ancillary probate is required when a person dies owning real estate outside of their home state.
By Heather A. McCollum April 21, 2025
When someone passes away owning property in another state, their estate may need to go through ancillary probate—a secondary court process in that state.
$9.9 Million Dollar Purchase of Packaged Multi-Unit Properties
By Commercial Real Estate April 18, 2025
Lavelle Law represented a joint venture in its $9.9 million acquisition of four multi-unit buildings.
Type F Reorg offers a means of achieving structural change while preserving tax continuity
By Steven A. Migala and Nathan P. Toy April 14, 2025
A Type F reorganization (“F Reorg”), governed by Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code, provides a strategically significant mechanism for corporate restructuring. Defined as a “mere change in identity, form, or place of organization of one corporation,” an F Reorg permits a corporation to alter its legal existence while being treated for federal tax purposes as the same entity. This recharacterization allows for the uninterrupted preservation of tax attributes while maintaining shareholder continuity.
Estate Planning for Your Pet: Securing Your Pet’s Future with a Pet Trust
By Jackie R. Luthringshausen April 10, 2025
When it comes to estate planning, most people think about providing for their loved ones—but what about the furry, feathered, or scaled members of your family? In the United States, 68% of households own at least one pet, according to the American Pet Products Association’s 2023-2024 National Pet Owners Survey. For many, pets are more than just companions—they’re family. Ensuring their care after your death or incapacity is a vital part of comprehensive estate planning. In Illinois, a Pet Trust offers a powerful solution to guarantee your pet’s well-being long after you’re gone.
IRS Press Release Addresses Payment Plan Options
By Timothy M. Hughes April 10, 2025
IRS Press Release Addresses Payment Plan Options - A recent press release by the IRS addressed the options that are available to taxpayers who may owe more on April 15th than they can pay. The IRS advised taxpayers that they do not need to wait until April 15 to file their 2024 federal return, and if they owe and are unable to pay the balance in full, there are payment plans available to help them pay their tax obligation.
Learn about essential legal protections to strengthen your business and safeguard your interests.
By Lavelle Law April 9, 2025
Join us on May 21 in Schaumburg for an engaging Breakfast Briefs seminar, delving into vital strategies to fortify your business. This session will explore the critical role of crafting ironclad non-compete agreements, shielding your trade secrets, and mastering the nuances of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and injunctive relief. Our presenters, attorneys Matthew Sheahin and Jennifer Tee, bring a wealth of experience in this legal domain. Seize this chance to bolster your company’s legal protections and lay a solid groundwork for enduring success!
FinCEN Eliminates BOI Reporting Obligations!
By Frank P. Portera March 25, 2025
On March 21, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued its interim final rule stating that those entities previously classified as "domestic reporting companies" are now exempt from all BOI reporting requirements. On the other hand, all foreign entities registered to do business in the USA must file their own initial BOI reports within 30 days of the initial final rule's publication, if they have not done so already.
Join us April 3, 2025 for Business After Hours 5-7 PM
By Lavelle Law March 19, 2025
Spring is here, and with baseball season kicking off, we’re stepping up to the plate with our annual Lavelle Law Business After Hours event. We’re excited to partner with our friends in the Schaumburg business community for an evening of networking, good vibes, and a few surprises—all hosted in the friendly confines of our Schaumburg office. Bonus points: Feel free to rock your favorite baseball team’s gear and show off your fandom while you’re at it!
Delaware Court  Provides the Standard of Supreme Review for the Redomestication of Corporations
By Steven A. Migala and Anthony Letto March 12, 2025
Delaware corporations seeking to redomesticate to another state should be advised that on February 4, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Palkon v. Maffei, C.A. No. 2023-0449-JTL, addressing a challenge to TripAdvisor's redomestication from a Delaware corporation to a Nevada corporation. The case raised important questions regarding the standard of review applicable to such reincorporations, particularly when fiduciaries may derive a benefit from shifting to a legal regime perceived as more friendly.
More Posts