ILCS » Chapter 775 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

775 ILCS 5/5-103 (2026)

Exemption

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(775 ILCS 5/5-103) (from Ch. 68, par. 5-103)
    Sec. 5-103. Exemption. Nothing in this Article shall apply to:
    (A) Private Club. A private club, or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of the establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of another establishment that is a place of public accommodation.
    (B) Facilities Distinctly Private. Any facility, as to discrimination based on sex, which is distinctly private in nature such as restrooms, shower rooms, bath houses, health clubs and other similar facilities for which the Department, in its rules and regulations, may grant exemptions based on bona fide considerations of public policy.
    (C) Inn, Hotel, Rooming House. Any facility, as to discrimination based on sex, which restricts the rental of rooms to individuals of one sex.
(Source: P.A. 85-567.)


 
    (775 ILCS 5/Art. 5A heading)
ARTICLE 5A. ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND HIGHER EDUCATION
(Source: P.A. 96-1319, eff. 7-27-10.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Maday v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 211, 2018 IL App (1st) 180294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maday v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 211, 2018 IL App (1st) 180294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “775 ILCS 5/5-103(B) (West 2016). It argued that the district's requirement that plaintiff use the "privacy curtain" as a condition of gaining access to the girls' locker room was based solely on plaintiff's "sex" at birth (male) and had nothing to do with plaintiff's…”
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sommerville, 2021 IL App (2d) 190362 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “775 ILCS 5/5-103(B) (West 2010). Thus, Hobby Lobby argues, its refusal to allow Sommerville to use the women’s bathroom cannot subject it to liability under either article 2 or 5.”
Maday v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 211, 2018 IL App (1st) 180294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “7 ¶ 23 In its response to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, SPP contended that plaintiff’s asserted right was not clearly ascertainable because it failed to account for the Act’s explicit exemption for single-sex privacy facilities in section 5-103(B) (775 ILCS…”
Baksh v. Human Rights Comm'n, 711 N.E.2d 416 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “The illustrations are examples of businesses, like petitioner's office, that offer services to the general public, with no preconditions other than the ability to pay for the services.”
M.U. v. Team Illinois Hockey Club, Inc., 2024 IL 128935 (Ill. 2024). “775 ILCS 5/5-103(A) (West 2020). Section 5-103(A) states: “Nothing in this Article shall apply to: - 17 - *** A private club, or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or…”
— 775 ILCS 5/5-103(A) — 1 case
M.U. v. Team Illinois Hockey Club, Inc., 2024 IL 128935 (Ill. 2024). “775 ILCS 5/5-103(A) (West 2020). Section 5-103(A) states: “Nothing in this Article shall apply to: - 17 - *** A private club, or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or…”
— 775 ILCS 5/5-103(B) — 3 cases
Maday v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 211, 2018 IL App (1st) 180294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “775 ILCS 5/5-103(B) (West 2016). It argued that the district's requirement that plaintiff use the "privacy curtain" as a condition of gaining access to the girls' locker room was based solely on plaintiff's "sex" at birth (male) and had nothing to do with plaintiff's…”
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sommerville, 2021 IL App (2d) 190362 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “775 ILCS 5/5-103(B) (West 2010). Thus, Hobby Lobby argues, its refusal to allow Sommerville to use the women’s bathroom cannot subject it to liability under either article 2 or 5.”
Maday v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 211, 2018 IL App (1st) 180294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “7 ¶ 23 In its response to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, SPP contended that plaintiff’s asserted right was not clearly ascertainable because it failed to account for the Act’s explicit exemption for single-sex privacy facilities in section 5-103(B) (775 ILCS…”
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.