ILCS » Chapter 820 · Act 115
Illinois Compiled Statutes

820 ILCS 115/11 (2026)

It shall be the duty of the Department of Labor to inquire diligently for any violations of this Act, and to institute the actions for violations and penalties herein provided, at the request of the employee or on motion of the Director of Labor, and to enforce generally the provisions of this Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(820 ILCS 115/11) (from Ch. 48, par. 39m-11)
    Sec. 11. It shall be the duty of the Department of Labor to inquire diligently for any violations of this Act, and to institute the actions for violations and penalties herein provided, at the request of the employee or on motion of the Director of Labor, and to enforce generally the provisions of this Act.
    An employee may file a complaint with the Department alleging violations of the Act by submitting a signed, completed wage claim application on the form provided by the Department and by submitting copies of all supporting documentation. Complaints shall be filed within one year after the wages, final compensation, or wage supplements were due.
    Wage claim applications shall be reviewed by the Department to determine whether there is cause and sufficient resources for investigation.
    The Department shall have the following powers:
        (a) To investigate and attempt equitably to adjust
    
controversies between employees and employers in respect of wage claims arising under this Act and to that end the Department through the Director of Labor or any other person in the Department of Labor designated by him or her, shall have the power to administer oaths, subpoena and examine witnesses, to issue subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of such books, papers, records and documents as may be evidence of any matter under inquiry and to examine and inspect the same as may relate to the question in dispute. Service of such subpoenas shall be made by any sheriff or any person. Any court in this State, upon the application of the Department may compel attendance of witnesses, the production of books and papers, and the giving of testimony before the Department by attachment for contempt or in any other way as the production of evidence may be compelled before such court.
        (b) To take assignments of wage claims in the name of
    
the Director of Labor and his or her successors in office and prosecute actions for the collection of wages for persons financially unable to prosecute such claims when in the judgment of the Department such claims are valid and enforceable in the courts. No court costs or any fees for necessary process and proceedings shall be payable in advance by the Department for prosecuting such actions. In the event there is a judgment rendered against the defendant, the court shall assess as part of such judgment the costs of such proceeding. Upon collection of such judgments the Department shall pay from the proceeds of such judgment such costs to such person who is by law entitled to same. The Department may join in a single proceeding any number of wage claims against the same employer but the court shall have discretionary power to order a severance or separate trial for hearings.
        (c) To make complaint in any court of competent
    
jurisdiction of violations of this Act.
        (d) In addition to the aforementioned powers, subject
    
to appropriation, the Department may establish an administrative procedure to adjudicate claims and to issue final and binding administrative decisions on such claims subject to the Administrative Review Law. To establish such a procedure, the Director of Labor or her or his authorized representative may promulgate rules and regulations. The adoption, amendment or rescission of rules and regulations for such a procedure shall be in conformity with the requirements of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. If a final and binding administrative decision issued by the Department requires an employer or other party to pay wages, penalties, or other amounts in connection with a wage claim, and the employer or other party has neither: (i) made the required payment within 35 days of the issuance of the final and binding administrative decision; nor (ii) timely filed a complaint seeking review of the final and binding administrative decision pursuant to the Administrative Review Law in a court of competent jurisdiction, the final and binding administrative decision is a debt due and owed to the State and may be collected using all remedies available under the law, including, but not limited to, those found in Article XII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The findings, decision, and order of the Department may be enforced in the same manner as any civil judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
    Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any employee from making complaint or prosecuting his or her own claim for wages. Any employee aggrieved by a violation of this Act or any rule adopted under this Act may file suit in circuit court of Illinois, in the county where the alleged violation occurred or where any employee who is party to the action resides, without regard to exhaustion of any alternative administrative remedies provided in this Act. Actions may be brought by one or more employees for and on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly situated.
    Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the State's Attorney of any county to prosecute actions for violation of this Act or to enforce the provisions thereof independently and without specific direction of the Department of Labor.
(Source: P.A. 103-201, eff. 1-1-24; 104-135, eff. 8-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Krause v. USA Docufinish, 2015 IL App (3d) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Krause v. USA Docufinish, 2015 IL App (3d) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 3× “" 820 ILCS 115/11 (West 2010). The 2011 amendments did not alter that language, even though they authorized the DOL to establish a procedure for rendering binding adjudications for certain claims.”
Nagel v. Gerald Dennen & Co., 650 N.E.2d 547 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “39m — 11 (now 820 ILCS 115/11 (West 1992))). Defendant subsequently presented, without notice to plaintiff, an "Emergency Motion.”
Doherty v. Kahn, 682 N.E.2d 163 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “In the instant case, it appears from the record that the trial court dismissed plaintiffs cause of action under the Wage Act based on its belief that the Wage Act did not provide for a private right of action.”
People Ex Rel. Dep't of Labor v. Tri State Tours, Inc., 795 N.E.2d 990 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Pursuant to section 11(a) of the Act (820 ILCS 115/11(a) (West 2000)), the Department investigated a complaint brought by Barbara Elliot that her former employer, Tri State Tours, had failed to pay her for 12.”
Kerbes v. Raceway Assocs., LLC, 961 N.E.2d 865 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “See 820 ILCS 105/12(a) (West 2010); 820 ILCS 115/11 (West 2010). Only section 4a of the Minimum Wage Law specifically concerns overtime payments, however, and it is clear that plaintiff's claim for overtime is fundamentally premised upon this section of the Minimum Wage Law.”
Walters v. Dep't of Labor, 826 N.E.2d 979 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “820 ILCS 115/11 (West 2002). In the present case, the Department chose to act under section 11(a) to investigate and attempt to equitably resolve the wage claims of the nine claimants.”
Zabel v. Cohn, 670 N.E.2d 877 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “In support, the plaintiff cites to the agreed order entered by the trial judge in the prior action which entered judgment on the arbitrator’s decision and award and supplemental decision and award but which also stated: "[I]t is ordered that the finding in paragraph B of the…”
Hampton v. Vill. of Washburn, 739 N.E.2d 1019 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “In Nagel, the First District held that the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Wage Act) (820 ILCS 115/11 (West 1992)) does not require a claimant to obtain an order or an initial determination of liability from the Department before he can bring an action in circuit court.”
Tao v. Simplex Investments, LLC, 2022 IL App (1st) 211040-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “¶ 20 The Act charges the Department with enforcement of the Act (820 ILCS 115/11 (West 2020)) and authorizes the Director of Labor and his representatives to promulgate regulations to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act.”
Krause v. USA Docufinish, 2015 IL App (3d) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 820 ILCS 115/11(d) (West 2012). However, section 11 had already provided that “[n]othing herein shall be construed to prevent any employee from making complaint or prosecuting his or her own claim for wages.”
Walters v. Dep't of Labor (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 4× “820 ILCS 115/11 (West 2002). In the present case, the Department chose to act under section 11(a) to investigate and attempt to equitably resolve the wage claims of the nine claimants.”
O'Grady v. SSI (US), Inc., 2024 IL App (1st) 230127-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “¶ 22 As defendants point out, the term “earned bonus” is considered to be a part of the “final compensation” that an employer must pay to a separated employee, either at the time of separation or no later than the next regularly scheduled pay period.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— 820 ILCS 115/11(a) — 6 cases
People Ex Rel. Dep't of Labor v. Tri State Tours, Inc., 795 N.E.2d 990 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Pursuant to section 11(a) of the Act (820 ILCS 115/11(a) (West 2000)), the Department investigated a complaint brought by Barbara Elliot that her former employer, Tri State Tours, had failed to pay her for 12.”
Zabel v. Cohn, 670 N.E.2d 877 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “In support, the plaintiff cites to the agreed order entered by the trial judge in the prior action which entered judgment on the arbitrator’s decision and award and supplemental decision and award but which also stated: "[I]t is ordered that the finding in paragraph B of the…”
People ex rel. Illinois Dep't of Labor v. Tri State Tours, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
Walters v. Dep't of Labor (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “820 ILCS 115/11 (West 2002). In the present case, the Department chose to act under section 11(a) to investigate and attempt to equitably resolve the wage claims of the nine claimants.”
Zabel v. Cohn (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).
— 820 ILCS 115/11(b) — 1 case
Walters v. Dep't of Labor (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “820 ILCS 115/11 (West 2002). In the present case, the Department chose to act under section 11(a) to investigate and attempt to equitably resolve the wage claims of the nine claimants.”
— 820 ILCS 115/11(c) — 6 cases
Doherty v. Kahn, 682 N.E.2d 163 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “In the instant case, it appears from the record that the trial court dismissed plaintiffs cause of action under the Wage Act based on its belief that the Wage Act did not provide for a private right of action.”
Hampton v. Vill. of Washburn (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
People ex rel. Illinois Dep't of Labor v. Tri State Tours, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
Walters v. Dep't of Labor (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “820 ILCS 115/11 (West 2002). In the present case, the Department chose to act under section 11(a) to investigate and attempt to equitably resolve the wage claims of the nine claimants.”
Doherty v. Kahn (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
— 820 ILCS 115/11(d) — 4 cases
Krause v. USA Docufinish, 2015 IL App (3d) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “" 820 ILCS 115/11 (West 2010). The 2011 amendments did not alter that language, even though they authorized the DOL to establish a procedure for rendering binding adjudications for certain claims.”
Krause v. USA Docufinish, 2015 IL App (3d) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 820 ILCS 115/11(d) (West 2012). However, section 11 had already provided that “[n]othing herein shall be construed to prevent any employee from making complaint or prosecuting his or her own claim for wages.”
O'Grady v. SSI (US), Inc., 2024 IL App (1st) 230127-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “¶ 22 As defendants point out, the term “earned bonus” is considered to be a part of the “final compensation” that an employer must pay to a separated employee, either at the time of separation or no later than the next regularly scheduled pay period.”
Lobrow v. Illinois Dep't of Labor, 2024 IL App (1st) 230163-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
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.