ILCS » Chapter 820 · Act 40
Illinois Compiled Statutes

820 ILCS 40/1 (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 40/1) (from Ch. 48, par. 2001)
    Sec. 1. Definitions. As used in this Act:
    (a) "Employee" means a person currently employed or subject to recall after layoff or leave of absence with a right to return at a position with an employer or a former employee who has terminated service within the preceding year.
    (b) "Employer" means an individual, corporation, partnership, labor organization, unincorporated association, the State, an agency or a political subdivision of the State, or any other legal, business, or commercial entity which has 5 employees or more than 5 employees exclusive of the employer's parent, spouse or child or other members of his immediate family and includes an agent of the employer.
    (c) "Law enforcement agency" means any entity with statutory police powers and the ability to employ individuals authorized to make arrests.
    (d) "Law enforcement personnel file" means all records related to a law enforcement officer's performance, discipline, training, employment history, and any investigation of the law enforcement officer for the duration of the law enforcement officer's employment with the law enforcement agency, including, but not limited to, background investigation materials collected in connection with making a final offer of employment, duty-related physical and psychological fitness-for-duty examinations, work performance records, criminal, civil, or administrative investigations of conduct, arrests, convictions, findings of guilt, pleas of guilty, or pleas of nolo contendere.
(Source: P.A. 104-158, eff. 1-1-26.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2021 · leading case: Yu Jung Park v. City of Chicago, 297 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yu Jung Park v. City of Chicago, 297 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2002). “Park requested to review her CPD personnel file pursuant to the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act (“the Illinois Record Act” or “the Act”), 820 ILCS 40/1 to 40/12. In general terms, this state statutory scheme permits an employee to inspect personnel documents “used in…”
Kopchar v. City of Chicago, 919 N.E.2d 76 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The City also maintains that the physical test scoring and criteria were exempt under the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act (820 ILCS 40/1 (West 2006)), pursuant to section 7(l)(a), which exempts “[i]nformation specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law…”
Watkins v. McCarthy, 2012 IL App (1st) 100632 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “¶ 41 Defendant first claims that disclosure is prohibited under state law in that the CR files are “records of disciplinary action” under the Personnel Record Review Act (820 ILCS 40/1 et seq. (West 2008)) and, therefore, are protected from release under section 8 of the…”
Bogosian v. Bd. of Educ. of Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 200, 134 F. Supp. 2d 952 (N.D. Ill. 2001). · cites it 2× “Bogosian brought a suit alleging due process violations, defamation, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and violations of the Illinois Personnel Records Review Act, 820 ILCS 40/1 et seq. Mr. Bogosian moved for summary judgment on the Records…”
Fuqua v. SVOX AG, 2014 IL App (1st) 131429 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “(West 2008)), and the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act (820 ILCS 40/1 et seq. (West 2008)). On April 13, 2012, Fuqua filed a revised motion to stay arbitration pursuant to sections 1 and 2(b) of the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act (Uniform Arbitration Act) (710 ILCS 5/1,…”
Indep. Plus, Inc. v. Walter, 2012 IL App (1st) 111877 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Subsequently, Walter filed a series of administrative complaints against IPI, namely, (1) a complaint under the Personnel Record Review Act (820 ILCS 40/1 et seq. (West 2008)) with the Illinois Department of Labor, (2) a complaint under the Wage Payment and Collection Act (820…”
Scurto v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 37 F. App'x 213 (7th Cir. 2002). “, and the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act (“IPRRA”), 820 ILCS 40/1, et seq. The district court granted ComEd’s motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing all claims except Scurto’s Title VII claims for failure to train and hostile work environment.”
Belcastro v. United Airlines, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018). “While it is true that IPRRA does not contain any geographical restrictions in its definition of “employer” and “employee,” see 820 ILCS 40/1, this demonstrates, at best, ambiguity rather than clear intent.”
Smith v. Evans (N.D. Ill. 2021). “, against the City and Roberts; (5) IHRA retaliation aiding and abetting against the City, Roberts, Flowers, and Aguilu-Murphy; (6) a claim under the Illinois Personnel Records Review Act (“IPRRA”), 820 ILCS 40/1 et seq., against Flowers and Aguilu-Murphy; and (7)…”
Szczesny v. River Forest Vill. (N.D. Ill. 2021). “For the remaining Count III claims, the type of relief to which Szczesny may be entitled (if C.”
Camacho Martinez v. FQSR, LLC Chicken (N.D. Ill. 2021). “See 820 ILCS 40/1(a) (the Act applies to a “person currently employed or subject to recall after layoff or leave of absence with a right to return at a position with an employer or a former employee who has terminated service within the preceding year”).”
Fuqua v. SVOX AG, 2014 IL App (4th) 131429 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “(West 2008)), and the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act (820 ILCS 40/1 et seq. (West 2008)). On April 13, 2012, Fuqua filed a revised motion to stay arbitration pursuant to sections 1 and 2(b) of the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act (Uniform Arbitration Act) (710 ILCS 5/1,…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— 820 ILCS 40/1(a) — 1 case
Camacho Martinez v. FQSR, LLC Chicken (N.D. Ill. 2021). “See 820 ILCS 40/1(a) (the Act applies to a “person currently employed or subject to recall after layoff or leave of absence with a right to return at a position with an employer or a former employee who has terminated service within the preceding year”).”
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.