Illinois Compiled Statutes
740 ILCS 92/40 (2026)
Retaliatory discharge; remedy
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 92/40)
Sec. 40.
Retaliatory discharge; remedy.
An employee who is discharged,
demoted,
suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against
in the terms and
conditions of employment by his or her employer because of lawful acts done by
the employee
on behalf of the employee or others in furtherance of an action under this Act,
including
investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action
filed or to be filed under
this Act, shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole.
That relief shall
include reinstatement with the same seniority status the employee would have
had but for the
discrimination, 2 times the amount of backpay, interest on the backpay, and
compensation for
any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including
litigation costs and
reasonable attorney's fees. An employee may bring an action in the appropriate
court for the
relief provided in this Section. The remedies under this Section are
in addition to any other
remedies provided by existing law.
(Source: P.A. 92-233, eff. 1-1-02.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2024 · leading case: State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “740 ILCS 92/40 (West 2016). ¶ 38 At oral argument, Family Vision Care suggested that “employee” in section 40 refers to an insurance company employee.”
State of Illinois ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “But, this interpretation makes little sense because an insurance company employee would be unlikely to face retaliation for identifying claims that defraud their employer.”
United States of Am. v. Reditus Labs. (C.D. Ill. 2024). “in furtherance of an action” alleging IFCA violations); 740 ILCS 92/40 (“An employee who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because of lawful acts…”
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.
|