820 ILCS 115/14
Penalties
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(820 ILCS 115/14)
(from Ch. 48, par. 39m-14) Sec. 14. Penalties. (a) Any employee not timely paid wages, final compensation, or wage supplements by his or her employer as required by this Act shall be entitled to recover through a claim filed with the Department of Labor or in a civil action, but not both, the amount of any such underpayments and damages of 5% of the amount of any such underpayments for each month following the date of payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid. In a claim filed with the Department and adjudicated through an administrative hearing, the damages of 5% shall accrue for each month that the underpayments remain unpaid until the date the final order and decision of the Department becomes a debt due and owed to the State. In a civil action, such employee shall also recover costs and all reasonable attorney's fees. (a-5) In addition to the remedies provided in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this Section, any employer or any agent of an employer, who, being able to pay wages, final compensation, or wage supplements and being under a duty to pay, willfully refuses to pay as provided in this Act, or falsely denies the amount or validity thereof or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself or other person any underpayment of such indebtedness or with intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay or defraud the person to whom such indebtedness is due, upon conviction, is guilty of: (1) for unpaid wages, final compensation or wage | supplements in the amount of $5,000 or less, a Class B misdemeanor; or |
(2) for unpaid wages, final compensation or wage | supplements in the amount of more than $5,000, a Class A misdemeanor. |
Each day during which any violation of this Act continues shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. Any employer or any agent of an employer who violates this Section of the Act a subsequent time within 2 years of a prior criminal conviction under this Section is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class 4 felony. (b) Any employer who has been demanded or ordered by the Department or ordered by the court to pay wages, final compensation, or wage supplements due an employee shall be required to pay a non-waivable administrative fee to the Department of Labor in the amount of $500 if the amount ordered by the Department as wages owed is $3,000 or less; $750 if the amount ordered by the Department as wages owed is more than $3,000, but less than $10,000; and $1,250 if the amount ordered by the Department as wages owed is $10,000 or more. Any employer who has been so demanded or ordered by the Department or ordered by a court to pay such wages, final compensation, or wage supplements and who fails to seek timely review of such a demand or order as provided for under this Act and who fails to comply within 15 calendar days after such demand or within 35 days of an administrative or court order is entered shall also be liable to pay a penalty to the Department of Labor of 20% of the amount found owing and a penalty to the employee of 1% per calendar day of the amount found owing for each day of delay in paying such wages to the employee. In a claim filed with the Department and adjudicated through an administrative hearing, the penalty of 1% shall accrue for each calendar day that the underpayments remain unpaid until the date the final order and decision of the Department becomes a debt due and owed to the State. All moneys recovered as fees and civil penalties under this Act, except those owing to the affected employee, shall be deposited into the Wage Theft Enforcement Fund, a special fund which is hereby created in the State treasury. Moneys in the Fund may be used for enforcement of this Act and for outreach and educational activities of the Department related to the recovery of unpaid or underpaid compensation and the disbursement of moneys to affected parties. (b-5) Penalties and fees under this Section may be assessed by the Department and recovered in a civil action brought by the Department in any circuit court or in any administrative adjudicative proceeding under this Act. In any such civil action or administrative adjudicative proceeding under this Act, the Department shall be represented by the Attorney General. (c) Any employer, or any agent of an employer, who discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because that employee has made a complaint to his or her employer, to the Director of Labor or his or her authorized representative, in a public hearing, or to a community organization that he or she has not been paid in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or because that employee has caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act, or because that employee has testified or is about to testify in an investigation or proceeding under this Act, is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C misdemeanor. An employee who has been unlawfully retaliated against shall be entitled to recover through a claim filed with the Department of Labor or in a civil action, but not both, all legal and equitable relief as may be appropriate. In a civil action, such employee shall also recover costs and all reasonable attorney's fees. (d) Except as provided under subsections (a), (b), and (c), an employer who fails to furnish an employee or former employee with a pay stub as required by this Act or commits any other violation of this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 per violation payable to the Department. In determining the amount of the penalty under this subsection, the Department shall consider the appropriateness of the penalty to the size of the business of the employer charged and the gravity of the violation. (e) Any unpaid wages, penalties, damages, fines, or fees remaining unpaid after the judicial review of the Department's final decision, or the failure to pursue judicial review procedures under the Administrative Review Law, is a debt due and owed to the State and may be collected using all remedies available under the law. (f) After the expiration of the period in which judicial review under the Administrative Review Law may be sought for a final administrative decision, unless stayed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the findings, decision, and order of the Department may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Source: P.A. 103-182, eff. 6-30-23; 103-953, eff. 1-1-25; 104-135, eff. 8-1-25.) Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90
cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Thomas v. Weatherguard Construction Company, Inc.
Thomas v. Weatherguard Construction Company, Inc. (2015)
“” 820 ILCS 115/14(a) (West 2010). Plaintiff argues that both the 2% monthly interest on unpaid wages and the attorney fees provisions of the amendment should be applied retroactively.”
Walters v. Department of Labor (2005)
“) 820 ILCS 115/14 (West 2002). Thus, section 14 encompasses three distinct penalties arising out of specific conduct.”
Dynak v. Board of Education of Wood Dale School District 7 (2020)
“Count III alleged plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees, costs, and damages pursuant to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (820 ILCS 115/14 (West 2016)). ¶9 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.”
Thomas v. Weatherguard Construction Company, Inc. (2018)
“On April 21, 2017, after 10 years of litigation, the trial court found that plaintiff was "entitled to attorney fees in the amount of $178,449.97" and "costs in the amount of $1,124.”
Susan Cooper Houben, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Telular Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee (2000)
“In the end, only the three federal claims and the state claims for breach of employment contract and commissions under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 ILCS 115/14, went to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Telular on the federal claims and…”
Byung Moo Soh v. TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS (2004)
“820 ILCS 115/14(a) (West 1992). The Wage Act defines wages or final compensation as ‘any compensation owed an employee by an employer pursuant to an employment contract or agreement between the 2 parties.”
Miller v. Kiefer Specialty Flooring, Inc. (2000)
“39m — 14 (now 820 ILCS 115/14(a) (West 1998))), civil suits by aggrieved employees are governed by the rules of civil procedure.”
McGrath v. CCC Information Services, Inc. (2000)
“” 820 ILCS 115/14(c) (West 1996). Plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges that section 14(c) “reflects a clearly mandated expression of public policy that employers may not force employees to choose between exercising their rights under the [Act] and keeping their jobs.”
Harris v. Vision Energy, L.L.C. (2024)
“At that time, the IWPCA afforded the following protection: Any employee not timely paid wages, final compensation, or wage supplements by his or her employer as required by this Act shall be entitled to recover through a claim filed with the Department of Labor or in a civil…”
Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co. (1997)
“The Wage Act provides: "Any employer * * * who knowingly discharges or in any other manner knowingly discriminates against any employee because that employee has made a complaint to his employer * * * that he or she has not been paid in accordance with the provisions of this Act…”
Thomas v. Weatherguard Construction Company, Inc. (2019)
“¶3 On remand, neither party requested an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court, who had also presided over the bench trial, considered the issue based on the briefs and exhibits submitted by the parties. On April 21, 2017, after 10 years of litigation, the trial court found…”
Skelton v. American Intercontinental University Online (2005)
“Because plaintiffs present sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment under the direct/circumstantial evidence method, an *1078 analysis under the indirect method is unnecessary.”
— 820 ILCS 115/14(a) — 54 cases
Thomas v. Weatherguard Construction Company, Inc. (2015)
“” 820 ILCS 115/14(a) (West 2010). Plaintiff argues that both the 2% monthly interest on unpaid wages and the attorney fees provisions of the amendment should be applied retroactively.”
Thomas v. Weatherguard Construction Company, Inc. (2018)
“On April 21, 2017, after 10 years of litigation, the trial court found that plaintiff was "entitled to attorney fees in the amount of $178,449.97" and "costs in the amount of $1,124.”
Byung Moo Soh v. TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS (2004)
“820 ILCS 115/14(a) (West 1992). The Wage Act defines wages or final compensation as ‘any compensation owed an employee by an employer pursuant to an employment contract or agreement between the 2 parties.”
Thomas v. Weatherguard Construction Company, Inc. (2019)
“¶3 On remand, neither party requested an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court, who had also presided over the bench trial, considered the issue based on the briefs and exhibits submitted by the parties. On April 21, 2017, after 10 years of litigation, the trial court found…”
Walters v. Department of Labor (2005)
“) 820 ILCS 115/14 (West 2002). Thus, section 14 encompasses three distinct penalties arising out of specific conduct.”
— 820 ILCS 115/14(b) — 15 cases
Susan Cooper Houben, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Telular Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee (2000)
“In the end, only the three federal claims and the state claims for breach of employment contract and commissions under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 ILCS 115/14, went to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Telular on the federal claims and…”
Walters v. Department of Labor (2005)
“) 820 ILCS 115/14 (West 2002). Thus, section 14 encompasses three distinct penalties arising out of specific conduct.”
Miller v. Kiefer Specialty Flooring, Inc. (2000)
“39m — 14 (now 820 ILCS 115/14(a) (West 1998))), civil suits by aggrieved employees are governed by the rules of civil procedure.”
— 820 ILCS 115/14(c) — 14 cases
McGrath v. CCC Information Services, Inc. (2000)
“” 820 ILCS 115/14(c) (West 1996). Plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges that section 14(c) “reflects a clearly mandated expression of public policy that employers may not force employees to choose between exercising their rights under the [Act] and keeping their jobs.”
Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co. (1997)
“The Wage Act provides: "Any employer * * * who knowingly discharges or in any other manner knowingly discriminates against any employee because that employee has made a complaint to his employer * * * that he or she has not been paid in accordance with the provisions of this Act…”
Skelton v. American Intercontinental University Online (2005)
“Because plaintiffs present sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment under the direct/circumstantial evidence method, an *1078 analysis under the indirect method is unnecessary.”
Cardenas v. Grozdic (2014)
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.
|