Practice News

COVID-19 has brought new issues and questions to light when it comes to employment law. Do employers have a duty to protect their employees from viral diseases such as COVID-19? When it comes to employment law, one typically can recover under workers’ compensation. But the Workers’ Compensation Act limits the amount of damages employees can recover from employers—even when these damages are often not enough. In their December 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “Workers’ Comp, Negligence, and COVID-19,” past ISBA President Hon. Russell W. Hartigan (ret.) and Sarah Norkus examine how Illinois courts have held that employers must provide employees with a reasonably safe place in which to work and use reasonable care to provide for their employees’ safety. However, relying upon the Act to collect COVID-19-related damages will not be easy. And other routes may be worth pursuing when seeking negligence-related injuries on the job before moving ahead with a workers’ compensation claim.

The Illinois Supreme Court has amended Rules 529, 530, and 531, by adding the following language to each Rule: “Per the Act, only one scheduled assessment shall be applied regardless of the number of citations issued and prosecuted together.”

On December 4, 2020, after his November 3, 2020 election, Justice Neville, the second African American to sit on the Illinois Supreme Court, was sworn in by Chief Justice Anne M. Burke, with his wife and staff in attendance. 

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down five opinions on Thursday, December 3. They included opinions in two criminal cases and three civil cases.

In People v. Reed, the court answered the question of whether a guilty plea prevents a defendant from later asserting an actual innocence claim under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. In People v. Knapp, the court considered a case in which the defendant, after his attempted murder conviction was affirmed on appeal, filed a post-conviction petition that alleged that his waiver of his right to testify was neither knowingly nor voluntarily made.

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Elmore, the court considered the meaning and enforceability of a “mechanical device” exclusion in an automobile insurance policy that covered a grain truck used in a grain farming operation. In Gillespie v. Edmier, the court agreed that the defendant manufacturer was not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s strict product liability claims. In People ex rel. Lisa Madigan v. Stateline Recycling, LLC, the court reviewed a contempt order and remanded a case involving a civil enforcement action brought by the Attorney General under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.