ILCS » Chapter 775 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

775 ILCS 5/6-101 (2026)

Additional civil rights violations under Articles 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 6

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(775 ILCS 5/6-101) (from Ch. 68, par. 6-101)
    Sec. 6-101. Additional civil rights violations under Articles 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 6. It is a civil rights violation for a person, or for 2 or more persons, to conspire to:
        (A) Retaliation. Retaliate against a person because
    
that person has:
            (i) opposed or reported conduct that the person
        
reasonably and in good faith believes to be prohibited under Articles 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 6;
            (ii) made a charge, filed a complaint, testified,
        
assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act; or
            (iii) requested, attempted to request, used, or
        
attempted to use a reasonable accommodation as allowed by this Act;
        (B) Aiding and Abetting; Coercion. Aid, abet, compel,
    
or coerce a person to commit any violation of this Act;
        (C) Interference. Wilfully interfere with the
    
performance of a duty or the exercise of a power by the Commission or one of its members or representatives or the Department or one of its officers or employees.
(Source: P.A. 102-233, eff. 8-2-21; 102-362, eff. 1-1-22; 102-813, eff. 5-13-22; 103-472, eff. 8-1-24; 103-797, eff. 1-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Schroeder v. RGIS, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 122483 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schroeder v. RGIS, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 122483 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “¶5 BACKGROUND ¶6 On February 28, 2011, plaintiff filed his initial complaint against defendant alleging a claim for retaliation under section 6-101(A) of the Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) (West 2010)), constructive discharge, and negligence.”
Thomas FLAHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAS Rsch. Inst., Defendant-Appellee, 31 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 1994). “Retaliation resulting from opposition to age-based discrimination also is encompassed by the IHRA (see 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A)), and such a claim is therefore clearly within the scope of Mein.”
Jeffrey Bruno v. Chasity Wells-Armstrong, 93 F.4th 1049 (7th Cir. 2024). “§ 12203 (a), and IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A); and (3) indemnification under Illinois law, only against the City, 745 ILCS 10/9-102.”
Martinez v. Nw. Univ., 173 F. Supp. 3d 777 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “See 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A). Defendant, however, argues that plaintiffs claims of retaliation fail as a matter of law because she cannot establish the second and third elements of her prima facie case.”
Weiler v. Vill. of Oak Lawn, 86 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “He claims that the Village violated the Illinois Civil Rights Act, 740 ILCS 23/5 (count 9), and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) (count 11), by terminating him because he opposed race discrimination.”
Weatherly v. Illinois Human Rights Com'n, 788 N.E.2d 1175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “In urging reversal of the Commission's decision, the petitioner argues that the amendment which she filed with the Department on June 23, 1999, was not untimely as it related back to the timely filing of her original charge on September 10, 1998. The petitioner also appears to…”
Illinois Native Am. Bar Ass'n v. Univ. of Illinois, 856 N.E.2d 460 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “See 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) (West 2004). The claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs, all of whom are alleged to be Native Americans, present different considerations.”
Blount v. Stroud, 915 N.E.2d 925 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) (West 2006). However, under the Illinois Human Rights Act as it existed at the time Blount filed her complaint, punitive damages were not available.”
M.U. v. Team Illinois Hockey Club, Inc., 2022 IL App (2d) 210568 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “775 ILCS 5/6-101(B) (West 2020). A plaintiff adequately pleads that a defendant aided or abetted an unlawful act by alleging the following elements: (1) the party whom the defendant aids must perform a wrongful act that causes an injury; (2) the defendant must be regularly aware…”
Zoepfel-Thuline v. Black Hawk Coll., 2019 IL App (3d) 180524 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “¶ 26 Additionally, regarding the influence of federal precedent in Illinois courts, we first note that section 6-101(A) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) (West 2014)) largely tracks the statutory language used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—…”
Kozlowski v. Greenridge Farm, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 3d 828 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “because he or she has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act, or because he or she has requested, attempted to request, used, or attempted to use a reasonable accommodation as allowed by…”
Terry v. Watts Copy Sys., Inc., 768 N.E.2d 789 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “" 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) (West 2000). Thus, retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim does not constitute a civil rights violation under the Act, and the Commission does not have jurisdiction over such a claim.”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) — 61 cases
Schroeder v. RGIS, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 122483 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “¶5 BACKGROUND ¶6 On February 28, 2011, plaintiff filed his initial complaint against defendant alleging a claim for retaliation under section 6-101(A) of the Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) (West 2010)), constructive discharge, and negligence.”
Thomas FLAHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAS Rsch. Inst., Defendant-Appellee, 31 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 1994). “Retaliation resulting from opposition to age-based discrimination also is encompassed by the IHRA (see 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A)), and such a claim is therefore clearly within the scope of Mein.”
Jeffrey Bruno v. Chasity Wells-Armstrong, 93 F.4th 1049 (7th Cir. 2024). “§ 12203 (a), and IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A); and (3) indemnification under Illinois law, only against the City, 745 ILCS 10/9-102.”
Martinez v. Nw. Univ., 173 F. Supp. 3d 777 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “See 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A). Defendant, however, argues that plaintiffs claims of retaliation fail as a matter of law because she cannot establish the second and third elements of her prima facie case.”
Weiler v. Vill. of Oak Lawn, 86 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “He claims that the Village violated the Illinois Civil Rights Act, 740 ILCS 23/5 (count 9), and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) (count 11), by terminating him because he opposed race discrimination.”
— 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A)(i) — 1 case
Stevens v. Human Rights Comm'n, 2024 IL App (1st) 230610-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
— 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A)(iii) — 1 case
Galbreath v. Help at Home, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025).
— 775 ILCS 5/6-101(B) — 2 cases
M.U. v. Team Illinois Hockey Club, Inc., 2022 IL App (2d) 210568 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “775 ILCS 5/6-101(B) (West 2020). A plaintiff adequately pleads that a defendant aided or abetted an unlawful act by alleging the following elements: (1) the party whom the defendant aids must perform a wrongful act that causes an injury; (2) the defendant must be regularly aware…”
Gibson v. The Human Rights Comm'n, 2025 IL App (4th) 240955-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025).
— 775 ILCS 5/6-101(a) — 2 cases
Thomas v. Habitat Co., 213 F. Supp. 2d 887 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
Brooks v. FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. (S.D. Ill. 2021).
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.