On August 15, 2025, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed into law two important changes to the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) found in SB2487.
Fact Finding Conferences No Longer Mandatory or Automatic
First, the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) will no longer be required to conduct Fact Finding Conferences (FFCs) (a generally two-hour hearing with an investigator and each side present to answer questions) in each employment charge filed. Instead, FFCs will mostly be voluntary and will be conducted if both sides chose to opt-in to having the FFC. Specifically, if both the complainant and the respondent submit a written request for a FFC within 90 days after “the date on which the charge was filed,” then the IDHR must conduct a FFC, unless it issues its report before receiving both requests. If the parties request the FFC, they must also include a 120-day extension of time for the IDHR to investigate the charge and issue its report. The IDHR can also still decide to hold a FFC regardless of what the parties decide. This new law applies to all claims pending or filed on or after August 15, 2025.
As somewhat of an aside, it is notable that currently, and for at least the past several years, the IDHR has been behind in its processing of charges of discrimination by many months and sometimes up to a year after the charge was initially filed. This means that respondents usually will not promptly become aware that a charge has been filed. The IDHR is required to notify respondents and provide a copy of a charge within 10 days of it being filed. In the past, the IDHR has notified respondents of charges being filed, and if the charge was unperfected (such as missing a notarized signature or being in an improper format), the respondents would be instructed that they need not do anything until further notice. These notices no longer appear to be sent, and instead, the IDHR works to first perfect the charge and then notify respondents of it having been filed. (We will not argue here the reasons why it is patently unfair to respondents to not be informed of charges for potentially three or more years after a particular employment situation arose – the two-year statute of limitations, plus however much time the IHRA takes to process the charge. We are aware that the state has job postings as of publication for both Intake Investigators and Case Investigators, so hopefully there will be some improvement soon, especially with the reduction in the number of FFCs that will be conducted.) Presumably, respondents will still have the 90 days after the charge is perfected to opt in to the FFC, even though the statutory language refers to the charge being “filed.”
Going forward, respondent employers will want to discuss with their counsel the potential benefits and risks of attending a FFC. Notably, engaging in a FFC does not eliminate the need or alter the timing of preparing a position statement, which is 60 days after the respondent receives notice of the perfected charge. Although the FFC takes time and resources for preparation and attendance, FFCs are mostly conducted virtually so that time is more limited than when they used to be in person in downtown Chicago or in Springfield. In addition, the FFC can bring out valuable information that an employer may not have been aware of, which can open the door to an early settlement if that is determined to be valuable, or the opportunity for the employer to respond to the new information. On the other hand, in baseless or highly contentious cases, employers may choose to avoid the inconvenience and potential waste of time and resources that can occur with a FFC.
New Civil Penalties for Violations of IHRA
In addition to the elimination of a mandatory Fact Finding Conference, an amendment to the IHRA now allows the Illinois Human Rights Commission (IHRC) to impose a civil penalty “to vindicate the public interest.” Prior to this amendment, the IHRC hearing officer (an administrative law judge) (ALJ) could, upon a finding of a civil rights violation, recommend to the IHRC various penalties, including a cease-and-desist order, actual damages, reinstatement, promotion, backpay, fringe benefits, attorney’s fees, posting notices, etc. The amendment now allows the ALJ to also impose a separate civil penalty for each specific act constituting a civil rights violation, which goes to the state.
For first civil rights violations, the civil penalty can be up to $16,000 per each specific act and for each aggrieved party. If the respondent has been adjudged to have committed one other civil rights violation in the prior five-year period from the date the charge was filed, the penalty can be up to $42,500 (per act, per aggrieved party). The civil penalty can be up to $70,000 if the respondent had been adjudged to have committed two or more violations of the IHRA in the prior seven years from the date the charge was filed. If the acts that constituted the civil rights violation were committed by the same “natural” person – “natural” is undefined but presumably it means an individual – who has been previously adjudged to have committed acts constituting a violation of the IHRA, then the civil penalties can be imposed without regard to the period of time within which any subsequent civil rights violation under the Act occurred. The wording of this section regarding “natural person” is vague, however, as it does not specify whether that natural person had to have been employed by the same employer when the other violations occurred, or whether one employer can be subject to higher civil penalties because of the acts of one of its employees committed at a time that employee was not employed (presumably unbeknownst to the subsequent employer).
The Bottom Line
The elimination of mandatory fact finding conferences may streamline the investigation process for some employers, although the ultimate impact of this change remains to be seen. Additionally, the new civil penalties, which can end up being larger than other monetary damages such as backpay or emotional distress paid to the complainant, are a good reminder to employers to make sure their anti-harassment and discrimination policies are up to date and that they fully train all employees, especially managers, on proper enforcement of the policies, to help avoid adverse findings in the future.
