ILCS » Chapter 820 · Act 115
Illinois Compiled Statutes

820 ILCS 115/2 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(820 ILCS 115/2) (from Ch. 48, par. 39m-2)
    Sec. 2. Definitions. For all employees, other than separated employees, "wages" shall be defined as any compensation owed an employee by an employer pursuant to an employment contract or agreement between the 2 parties, whether the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, or any other basis of calculation. Payments to separated employees shall be termed "final compensation" and shall be defined as wages, salaries, earned commissions, earned bonuses, and the monetary equivalent of earned vacation and earned holidays, and any other compensation owed the employee by the employer pursuant to an employment contract or agreement between the 2 parties. Where an employer is legally committed through a collective bargaining agreement or otherwise to make contributions to an employee benefit, trust or fund on the basis of a certain amount per hour, day, week or other period of time, the amount due from the employer to such employee benefit, trust, or fund shall be defined as "wage supplements", subject to the wage collection provisions of this Act.
    As used in this Act, the term "employer" shall include any individual, partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, business trust, employment and labor placement agencies where wage payments are made directly or indirectly by the agency or business for work undertaken by employees under hire to a third party pursuant to a contract between the business or agency with the third party, or any person or group of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee, for which one or more persons is gainfully employed.
    As used in this Act, the term "employee" shall include any individual permitted to work by an employer in an occupation, but shall not include any individual:
        (1) who has been and will continue to be free from
    
control and direction over the performance of his work, both under his contract of service with his employer and in fact; and
        (2) who performs work which is either outside the
    
usual course of business or is performed outside all of the places of business of the employer unless the employer is in the business of contracting with third parties for the placement of employees; and
        (3) who is in an independently established trade,
    
occupation, profession or business.
    "Pay stub" means an itemized statement or statements reflecting an employee's hours worked, rate of pay, overtime pay and overtime hours worked, gross wages earned, deductions made from the employee's wages, and the total of wages and deductions year to date.
    The following terms apply to an employer's use of payroll cards to pay wages to an employee under the requirements of this Act:
    "Payroll card" means a card provided to an employee by an employer or other payroll card issuer as a means of accessing the employee's payroll card account.
    "Payroll card account" means an account that is directly or indirectly established through an employer and to which deposits of a participating employee's wages are made.
    "Payroll card issuer" means a bank, financial institution, or other entity that issues a payroll card to an employee under an employer payroll card program.
(Source: P.A. 103-953, eff. 1-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124 cases (51 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Andrews v. Kowa Printing Corp., 838 N.E.2d 894 (Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Andrews v. Kowa Printing Corp., 838 N.E.2d 894 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 10× “Kowa, and Huston-Patterson Corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that they were owed unpaid vacation time and severance pay and that all three defendants were jointly liable for the amounts owed, as all three fell within the Wage Act's definition of "employer.”
Thomas Adams v. Richard Catrambone & Great Lakes Bldg. Materials, Inc., 359 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2004). · cites it 13× “The defendants argue in the alternative that, even if the Wage Act were to apply to nonresidents, dismissal would still be appropriate because Adams comes under the exclusion in 820 ILCS 115/2, making him a non-employee.”
Watts v. ADDO Mgmt., L.L.C., 2018 IL App (1st) 170201 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 4× “¶ 4 In their second amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that they were residents of Illinois and, at all relevant times, "employees" of the defendants, as that term is defined under section 2 of the Wage Act ( 820 ILCS 115/2 (West 2014) ). They further alleged that the…”
Catania v. LOCAL 4250/5050, 834 N.E.2d 966 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “” 820 ILCS 115/2 (West 1998). With respect to who is considered to be an “employer” under the Wage Payment Act, section 2 defines the term as: “any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, employment and labor placement agencies where wage payments are…”
Zabinsky v. Gelber Grp., Inc., 807 N.E.2d 666 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “) 820 ILCS 115/2 (West 1994). Plaintiff testified at trial that he worked the first quarter of 1990 pursuant to an agreement that defendants would pay him a bonus based upon a mutually agreed-upon formula.”
Byung Moo Soh v. Target Mktg. Sys., 817 N.E.2d 1105 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “On appeal, the plaintiff, Byung Moo Soh, argues that the trial court erroneously interpreted an employee exemption found in section 2 of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (820 ILCS 115/2 (West 2002)). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the trial…”
O'Malley v. Udo, 2022 IL App (1st) 200007 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 5× “Udo, International Asset Transactions, LLC (IAT), and IATMarkets, LLC (IATM), pursuant to section 2 of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Wage Act) (820 ILCS 115/2 (West 2018)). On appeal, plaintiff contends (1) the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff met all…”
Landers-Scelfo v. Corp. Off. Sys., Inc., 827 N.E.2d 1051 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “See 820 ILCS 115/2, 3, 5 (West 2002). At issue here is whether plaintiff adequately pleaded (1) that she had an employment agreement with Synergy that required the payment of commissions and (2) that Synergy was her employer under the Wage Collection Act.”
Peter Enger v. Chicago Carriage Cab Corp., 812 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2016). “” 820 ILCS 115/2 (emphasis added). As such, to state a claim under the IWPCA, the drivers are required to demonstrate that they are owed compensation from defendants pursuant to an employment agreement.”
Brown v. DS Servs. of Am., Inc., 246 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (N.D. Ill. 2017). · cites it 2× “July 16, 2012) (internal citations omitted). Rather, an IWPCA claim will fail unless the plaintiff shows that the defendants owe her compensation pursuant to an employment agreement, which can manifest based on mutual assent and need not involve a written contract.”
Andrews v. Kowa Printing Corp., 814 N.E.2d 198 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “” 820 ILCS 115/2 (West 2000). We agree with plaintiffs and hold that under the specific facts of this case, their claim under the Wage Act was a proper vehicle for their requested relief and federal preemption was not required.”
Anderson v. First Am. Grp. of Companies, 818 N.E.2d 743 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “Defendants argue that plaintiffs position as vice president of operations for First American is not an “employee” within the meaning of section 2 (820 ILCS 115/2 (West 2000)). Defendants also contend that plaintiff is not an “employee” under section 1 of the Attorneys Fees in…”
Show all 124 citing cases →
— 820 ILCS 115/2(1) — 7 cases
Thomas Adams v. Richard Catrambone & Great Lakes Bldg. Materials, Inc., 359 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2004). “The defendants argue in the alternative that, even if the Wage Act were to apply to nonresidents, dismissal would still be appropriate because Adams comes under the exclusion in 820 ILCS 115/2, making him a non-employee.”
Byung Moo Soh v. Target Mktg. Sys., 817 N.E.2d 1105 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “On appeal, the plaintiff, Byung Moo Soh, argues that the trial court erroneously interpreted an employee exemption found in section 2 of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (820 ILCS 115/2 (West 2002)). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the trial…”
O'Malley v. Udo, 2022 IL App (1st) 200007 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “Udo, International Asset Transactions, LLC (IAT), and IATMarkets, LLC (IATM), pursuant to section 2 of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Wage Act) (820 ILCS 115/2 (West 2018)). On appeal, plaintiff contends (1) the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff met all…”
Doherty v. Kahn, 682 N.E.2d 163 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
Adams, Thomas v. Catrambone, Richard (7th Cir. 2004).
— 820 ILCS 115/2(2) — 3 cases
Thomas Adams v. Richard Catrambone & Great Lakes Bldg. Materials, Inc., 359 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2004). “The defendants argue in the alternative that, even if the Wage Act were to apply to nonresidents, dismissal would still be appropriate because Adams comes under the exclusion in 820 ILCS 115/2, making him a non-employee.”
O'Malley v. Udo, 2022 IL App (1st) 200007 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “Udo, International Asset Transactions, LLC (IAT), and IATMarkets, LLC (IATM), pursuant to section 2 of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Wage Act) (820 ILCS 115/2 (West 2018)). On appeal, plaintiff contends (1) the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff met all…”
Adams, Thomas v. Catrambone, Richard (7th Cir. 2004).
— 820 ILCS 115/2(A) — 1 case
Sam Malone & Donald Brown, individually & on behalf of others similarly situated v. ASAP Trans Corp. & Kristina Petrosius (N.D. Ill. 2025).
— 820 ILCS 115/2(l) — 1 case
Thomas Adams v. Richard Catrambone & Great Lakes Bldg. Materials, Inc., 359 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2004). “The defendants argue in the alternative that, even if the Wage Act were to apply to nonresidents, dismissal would still be appropriate because Adams comes under the exclusion in 820 ILCS 115/2, making him a non-employee.”
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.