Illinois Supreme Court Breaks With Federal Courts on Pay for Preliminary and Postliminary Work ActivitiesBy Michael R. LiedBusiness Advice and Financial Planning, June 2026In Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, the Illinois Supreme Court recently concluded that the General Assembly did not signify any intention to incorporate the preliminary and postliminary activities exclusions set forth in the Portal-to-Portal Act. Rather, the General Assembly delegated the authority to define “hours worked” to IDOL. In turn, IDOL adopted a definition of “hours worked” that necessarily includes preliminary and postliminary activities, explicitly encompassing all time that an employee is required to be on an employer’s premises.
Illinois Supreme Court Breaks With Federal Courts on Pay for Preliminary and Postliminary Work ActivitiesBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, May 2026In Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, the Illinois Supreme Court recently concluded that the General Assembly did not signify any intention to incorporate the preliminary and postliminary activities exclusions set forth in the Portal-to-Portal Act. Rather, the General Assembly delegated the authority to define “hours worked” to IDOL. In turn, IDOL adopted a definition of “hours worked” that necessarily includes preliminary and postliminary activities, explicitly encompassing all time that an employee is required to be on an employer’s premises.
Frivolous Appeal Results in SanctionsBy Michael R. LiedCorporate Law Departments, April 2026In Girard v. Girard, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reminded litigants that an order remanding a removed case to state court is almost never reviewable on appeal and frivolous appeals really can result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
Frivolous Appeal Results in SanctionsBy Michael R. LiedEmployee Benefits, April 2026In Girard v. Girard, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reminded litigants that an order remanding a removed case to state court is almost never reviewable on appeal and frivolous appeals really can result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
Frivolous Appeal Results in SanctionsBy Michael R. LiedFederal Civil Practice, March 2026In Girard v. Girard, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reminded litigants that an order remanding a removed case to state court is almost never reviewable on appeal and frivolous appeals really can result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
Too Much Litigation: “Frivolity” Results in SanctionsBy Michael R. LiedFederal Civil Practice, August 2025In Ruben Santoyo v. City of Chicago, the court of appeals upheld a sanction against a pro se plaintiff for filing frivolous litigation.
Reread All the Jury Instructions!By Michael R. LiedFederal Civil Practice, May 2025In a false advertising case between Republic Technologies and BBK Tobacco (HBI), the Seventh Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision to refer the jury back to the original instructions rather than clarify a question about the term “consumer.” Republic argued this was misleading, but the appeals court found the original instructions were accurate and broad enough to cover the issue. The court emphasized that trial judges have discretion in handling jury questions and that supplemental instructions are not required if the existing ones correctly state the law.
When Can a Party Litigate Under a Pseudonym?By Michael R. LiedFederal Civil Practice, August 2023A recent appellate court recently considered the issue of a party seeking to litigate without disclosing his identity.
Court Will Not Aggregate Employees of Separate Companies to Reach Title VII ThresholdBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, December 2020InPrince v. Appleton Auto, LLC, the plaintiff's attempt to try to combine the employees of several related companies to reach or exceed the necessary number of employees for the company to be subject to specific employment laws was rejected.
Nondisparagement Clause Does Not Violate National Labor Relations ActBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, December 2020In IGT d/b/a International Game Technology, the general counsel alleged that IGT violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by maintaining an overly-broad nondisparagement provision in an agreement.
Illinois High Court Will Not Apply Federal Successor Liability DoctrineBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, October 2020In People ex rel. Department of Human Rights v. Oakridge Healthcare Center, LLC, the Illinois Supreme Court considered, but rejected, the federal approach to successor liability in cases under the Illinois Human Rights Act.
Employers Must Use New I-9 Employment Verification FormsBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, March 2020As of Jan. 31, employers should begin using Form I-9 with revision date of October 21, 2019, to comply with their employment eligibility verification responsibilities.
Illinois Recognizes Successor Liability Under Human Rights ActBy Michael R. LiedBusiness Advice and Financial Planning, December 2019In a recent appellate case, the court held that a corporate successor may be liable for the civil rights violation of a predecessor under the Illinois Human Rights Act.
Nondisparagement Policy May Violate the National Labor Relations ActBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, December 2019The National Labor Relations Board’s Office of the General Counsel recently considered whether former employees breached a nondisparagement agreement by criticizing the employer in negative online reviews.
Can Illinois Limit Mandatory Arbitration Provisions?By Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, October 2019The Illinois Workplace Transparency Act goes into effect on January 1. Among other things, it purports to put a number of limits on mandatory arbitration agreements imposed by employers.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.
