ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 174
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 174/30 (2026)

Damages and penalties for the employee

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 174/30)
    Sec. 30. Damages and penalties for the employee. If an employer takes any retaliatory action against an employee in violation of Section 15 or 20, the employee may bring a civil action against the employer for all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including but not limited to the following, as appropriate:
        (1) permanent or preliminary injunctive relief;
        (2) reinstatement with the same seniority status that
    
the employee would have had, but for the violation;
        (3) back pay, with interest of 9% per annum up to 90
    
calendar days from the date the complaint is filed and front pay;
        (4) liquidated damages of up to $10,000;
        (5) compensation for any costs incurred as a result
    
of the violation, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney's fees; and
        (6) additionally, the court shall award a civil
    
penalty of $10,000 payable to the employee.
(Source: P.A. 103-867, eff. 1-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: Young v. Alden Gardens of Waterford, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 131887 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Young v. Alden Gardens of Waterford, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 131887 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 4× “, alleging retaliation in violation of the Nursing Home Care Act (210 ILCS 45/3-810 (West 2010)) (count I), the Whistleblower Act (740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2010)) (count II) and common law retaliatory discharge (count III).”
Zuccolo v. Hannah Marine Corp., 900 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2004). Relying primarily on the differences in the reporting requirements of the Whistleblower Act and the Seaman’s Protection Act, Hannah Marine asserts that the two statutes are in conflict.”
Young v. Alden Gardens of Waterford, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 131887 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 4× “, alleging retaliation in violation of the Nursing Home Care Act (210 ILCS 45/3-810 (West 2010)) (count I), the Whistleblower Act (740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2010)) (count II) and common law retaliatory discharge (count III).”
Rehfield v. Diocese of Joliet, 2021 IL 125656 (Ill. 2021). “740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2016). - 17 - ¶ 56 Although plaintiff in this case is seeking money damages, not reinstatement to her former position, the Supreme Court has held that this is a distinction without a difference.”
Brummel v. Grossman, 2018 IL App (1st) 170516 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “" 740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2004). However, the Whistleblower Act did not become effective until January 1, 2004, so the decedent could not have prevailed on a claim concerning Nicor's conduct prior to the statute's enactment.”
Callahan v. Edgewater Care & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 872 N.E.2d 551 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “” 740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2004). Edgewater argues that the Whistleblower Act codified the whistle-blowing category of common-law retaliatory discharge claims and, therefore, preempts any common-law claim based on such activities.”
Brummel v. Grossman, 2018 IL App (1st) 170516 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “” 740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2004). However, the Whistleblower Act did not become effective until January 1, 2004, so the decedent could not have prevailed on a claim concerning Nicor’s conduct prior to the statute’s enactment.”
State of Illinois ex rel. Pusateri v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 2014 IL 116844 (Ill. 2014). “Compare 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2008), and 740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2008); see 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(2) (West 2008).”
Coffey v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 771 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “” 740 ILCS 174/15; see also 740 ILCS 174/30 (“If an employer takes any action against an employee in violation of Section 15 or 20, the employee may bring a civil action .”
State of Illinois ex rel. Pusateri v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 2014 IL 116844 (Ill. 2014). “740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2008). This relief for retaliation under the Whistleblower Act is less plentiful than that offered under the False Claims Act, and the Whistleblower Act does not offer a whistleblower the opportunity to share in any recovery by the State, but the…”
Kroot v. Chan, 2019 IL App (1st) 181392 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “However, unlike the language employed by the legislature in other fee-shifting statutes, which merely provide that "reasonable attorney" fees should, or may, be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff (see Whistleblower Act ( 740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2016) ); Consumer Fraud and Deceptive…”
Taylor v. The Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 2014 IL App (1st) 123744 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “) 740 ILCS 174/30, 15 (West 2004). Further, the relief provided can extend to whatever is necessary to make the employee whole, including, but not limited to, damages, back pay, reinstatement, fees and costs.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— 740 ILCS 174/30(1) — 1 case
Cary v. Ne. Illinois Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp (N.D. Ill. 2020).
— 740 ILCS 174/30(2) — 1 case
Zuccolo v. Hannah Marine Corp., 900 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2004). Relying primarily on the differences in the reporting requirements of the Whistleblower Act and the Seaman’s Protection Act, Hannah Marine asserts that the two statutes are in conflict.”
— 740 ILCS 174/30(3) — 2 cases
Zuccolo v. Hannah Marine Corp., 900 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2004). Relying primarily on the differences in the reporting requirements of the Whistleblower Act and the Seaman’s Protection Act, Hannah Marine asserts that the two statutes are in conflict.”
Young v. Alden Gardens of Waterford, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 131887 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, alleging retaliation in violation of the Nursing Home Care Act (210 ILCS 45/3-810 (West 2010)) (count I), the Whistleblower Act (740 ILCS 174/30 (West 2010)) (count II) and common law retaliatory discharge (count III).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.