ILCS » Chapter 820 · Act 40
Illinois Compiled Statutes

820 ILCS 40/4 (2026)

Personnel record information which was not included in the personnel record but should have been as required by this Act shall not be used by an employer in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(820 ILCS 40/4) (from Ch. 48, par. 2004)
    Sec. 4. Personnel record information which was not included in the personnel record but should have been as required by this Act shall not be used by an employer in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. However, personnel record information which, in the opinion of the judge in a judicial proceeding or the hearing officer in a quasi-judicial proceeding, was not intentionally excluded from the personnel record may be used by the employer in the proceeding if the employee agrees or has been given a reasonable time to review the information. Material which should have been included in the personnel record shall be used at the request of the employee.
(Source: P.A. 83-1104.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1995–2020 · leading case: Sindermann v. Civil Serv. Com'n of Gurnee, 657 N.E.2d 41 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sindermann v. Civil Serv. Com'n of Gurnee, 657 N.E.2d 41 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “) (820 ILCS 40/4 (West 1994).) Plaintiff apparently interprets section 4 as requiring all personnel record information to be included within a single personnel file.”
Pence v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (3d) 190384 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “On appeal, Pence claims that the decision should be reversed and the charge remanded for further investigation because (1) the Department relied on documents that were not included in Pence’s personnel file, as required by the Personnel Record Review Act (820 ILCS 40/4 (West…”
Beverly Robinson v. Morgan Stanley, 474 F. App'x 456 (7th Cir. 2012). “She also claimed that her change in job title and duties violated the FMLA and that Discover violated the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act, see 820 ILCS 40/4, 40/9, by introducing certain records from her employment during the Sar-banes-Oxley hearing before the ALJ and by…”
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.