ILCS » Chapter 820 · Act 140
Illinois Compiled Statutes

820 ILCS 140/1 (2026)

The words and phrases mentioned in this section, as used in this Act, and in proceedings pursuant hereto shall, unless the same be inconsistent with the context, be construed as follows:     "Employer" shall mean a person, partnership, joint stock company or corporation, which employs any person to work, labor or exercise skill in connection with the operation of any business, industry, vocation or occupation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(820 ILCS 140/1) (from Ch. 48, par. 8a)
    Sec. 1. The words and phrases mentioned in this section, as used in this Act, and in proceedings pursuant hereto shall, unless the same be inconsistent with the context, be construed as follows:
    "Employer" shall mean a person, partnership, joint stock company or corporation, which employs any person to work, labor or exercise skill in connection with the operation of any business, industry, vocation or occupation.
(Source: P.A. 78-917.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2005–2019 · leading case: Kostecki v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., 836 N.E.2d 837 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kostecki v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., 836 N.E.2d 837 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff also argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying her motion for leave to file a second-amended complaint, (2) the One Day Rest in Seven Act (820 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2002)) provides for an implied private cause of action, (3) the trial court erred in striking…”
Carty v. Suter Co., Inc., 863 N.E.2d 771 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “In count I of the complaint, plaintiff alleged that from December 2000 through May 2002, plaintiff worked, on average, 6 days per week for 11 hours per day and “rarely received a lunch break,” in violation of the One Day Rest in Seven Act (820 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2002)). On…”
520 South Michigan Ave. Assocs., Ltd. v. Shannon, 549 F.3d 1119 (7th Cir. 2008). “1, the Hotel Room Attendant Amendment (“Attendant Amendment”) to the One Day Rest in Seven Act, 820 ILCS 140/1 et. seq., is unconstitutional.”
Byrne v. Hayes Beer Distrib. Co., 2018 IL App (1st) 172612 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “The employer determined that the prohibition was consistent with the One Day Rest in Seven Act ( 820 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2014) ). Union employees filed a grievance protesting the employer's decision to limit their ability to work and gain overtime.”
Byrne v. Hayes Beer Distrib. Co., 2018 IL App (1st) 172612 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “The employer determined that the prohibition was consistent with the One Day Rest in Seven Act (820 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2014)). Union -7- employees filed a grievance protesting the employer’s decision to limit their ability to work and gain overtime.”
Thakkar v. Station Operators Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 908 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “Given the limited and narrow nature of this claim, this court declines to extend it in favor of Prafulla. Vasant’s claim for common-law retaliation, however, is cognizable under Illinois law.”
Carty v. Suter Co., Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “In count I of the complaint, plaintiff alleged that from December 2000 through May 2002, plaintiff worked, on average, 6 days per week for 11 hours per day and "rarely received a lunch break," in violation of the One Day Rest in Seven Act (820 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2002)). On…”
Kostecki v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff also argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying her motion for leave to file a second-amended complaint, (2) the One Day Rest in Seven Act (820 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2002)) provides for an implied private cause of action, (3) the trial court erred in striking…”
520 South Michigan v. Shannon, Catherine (7th Cir. 2008). “1, the Hotel Room Attendant Amendment (“Attendant Amendment”) to the One Day Rest in Seven Act, 820 ILCS 140/1 et. seq., is unconstitutional.”
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.