ILCS » Chapter 745 · Act 70
Illinois Compiled Statutes

745 ILCS 70/5 (2026)

Discrimination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(745 ILCS 70/5) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5305)
    Sec. 5. Discrimination. It shall be unlawful for any person, public or private institution, or public official to discriminate against any person in any manner, including but not limited to, licensing, hiring, promotion, transfer, staff appointment, hospital, managed care entity, or any other privileges, because of such person's conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Rojas v. Martell, 2020 IL App (2d) 190215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rojas v. Martell, 2020 IL App (2d) 190215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 3× “[745 ILCS 70/5 (West 2014).] 3. Is ‘reasonable accommodation,’ as that term is used under Title VII, a defense to a claim under the [Right of Conscience Act]? 4.”
Graham v. Pekin Fire Dept., 2022 IL App (4th) 220270 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 3× “The employees further claimed that imposing the vaccination or testing policy upon them was an act of discrimination prohibited by section 5 of the Right of Conscience Act (Conscience Act) (745 ILCS 70/5 (West 2020)). ¶5 Concluding that the pleadings failed to establish any…”
Lenz v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., 2023 IL App (1st) 230740 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “1-23-0740 ¶2 On February 15, 2022, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the instant action, charging that Advocate discriminated against her in violated section 5 of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (Act) (745 ILCS 70/5 (West 2020)). Specifically, the complaint…”
Carter Coal Co. v. Human Rights Comm'n, 633 N.E.2d 202 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “, 740 ILCS 170/10 (West 1992), 735 ILCS 5/12-818 (West 1992) (providing that an employee may not be discharged because his wages have been garnished); see also 720 ILCS 510/13 (West 1992) (prohibiting disciplinary action against one who refuses to participate in the performance…”
Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 867 N.E.2d 1164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “" 745 ILCS 70/5 (West 2004). A person injured by any action prohibited by the Right of Conscience Act may commence an action therefor and recover damages.”
Morr-Fitz v. Quinn, 2012 IL App (4th) 110398 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “” 745 ILCS 70/5 (West 2010). “Conscience” is defined as “a sincerely held set of moral convictions arising from belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by God among adherents to…”
Kopp v. Silver Cross Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 2025 IL App (3d) 240414 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “Regarding Count I, Silver Cross argued that (a) plaintiffs had not stated a claim under section 5 (745 ILCS 70/5 (West 2020)) because the Act did not protect only protected acts that involved the provision of healthcare services and (b) 3 the then-pending but not yet effective…”
Boone v. Illinois Dep't of Corr. (IDOC) (C.D. Ill. 2023). “The purpose of the HCRCA was to prevent employers discriminating against healthcare workers who refused to provide certain services due to reservations of conscience, such as pharmacists opposed to dispensing birth control or the Plan B “morning after” pill, 745 ILCS 70/5,…”
Carrero v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2024). “Specifically, Carrero alleges in his Third Amended Complaint [26] that the City violated: (1) the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause; (2) the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; (3) the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, 745 ILCS 70/5; (4) the Illinois…”
Brown v. Cook Cnty. Auditor's Off. (N.D. Ill. 2024). “5 of the Act explicitly bars claims arising from measures intended to prevent the contraction or transmission of COVID-19.”
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.