Illinois Amended Freedom to Work Act – What Employees and Employers Need to Know

JD Supra
September 1, 2021 Publications

On August 13, 2021, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed into law Senate Bill 672 ("SB 672") which amends the Illinois Freedom to Work Act (the "Act"). The sweeping changes limit when restrictive covenants entered after January 1, 2022 can be enforced against Illinois employees; the Act does not apply retroactively.

The Act was originally signed into law in 2016, by then-Governor Rauner and became effective on January 1, 2017. The original Act prohibited employers from requiring "low-wage employees" to enter into non-competition agreements and declared such agreements to be "illegal and void." The Act defined "low-wage employee" as any employee earning less than (1) the applicable federal, state or local hourly minimum wage, or (2) $13.00 per hour, whichever was greater. SB 672 amends Section 5 and 10 of the Act and adds Sections 7, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 97.

Notably, SB 672 eliminates the term "low-wage employees" and instead expands protections to any employee who earns or is expected to earn $75,000 or less per year. This revised language means that the new law will apply to the majority of Illinois' 5.5 million employees. As of 2019, Illinois employees earned on average $36,038 per year according to US Census data. SB 672 also prohibits employers from entering into employee non-solicitation or customer non-solicitation agreements with an employee who earns or is expected to earn $45,000 or less per year. Both of these salary thresholds increase over time.

For the most part, SB 672 codifies existing case law by requiring that non-competition and non-solicitation agreements: (1) be supported by adequate consideration; (2) are ancillary to a valid employment relationship; (3) are no greater than required to protect the employer's "legitimate business interests"; (4) do not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (5) are not injurious to the public. Embracing Illinois Appellate Court decisions, the Act defines "adequate consideration" to mean that the employee worked for the employer for at least two years after signing the restrictive covenant, or the employer provided consideration adequate to support the agreement.

Newly added Section 7 outlines a non-exhaustive list of factors for courts to consider when assessing whether a restrictive covenant is properly tailored to protect an employer's legitimate business interest. This list includes:

  • The employee's exposure to the employer's customer relationships or other employees; The near-permanence of customer relationships;
  • The employee's acquisition, use, or knowledge of confidential information through the employee's employment;
  • The time restrictions, the place restrictions; and
  • The scope of the activity restrictions.

As a gift to litigators, the new statute explicitly recognizes that every situation must be determined on its own particular facts, such that "[t]he same identical contract and restraint may be reasonable and valid under one set of circumstances and unreasonable and invalid under another set of circumstances."

The Act also empowers courts to alter overly broad restrictive covenants (commonly referred to as "blue-penciling"). Employers therefore must be careful to draft narrow restrictions and only include those that are needed to protect their legitimate business interests.

Employers also will be required to advise employees in writing to consult with an attorney before agreeing to a restrictive covenant. Employers, then, must give their employees 14 days to review the proposed restriction.

There are special provisions in the Act for employees related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, non-competition agreements cannot be enforced against furloughed or laid off employees unless the agreement provides for payment of the employee's base salary for a period of time.

The most notable divergence from existing common law is the Act's fee shifting provision, which penalizes employers that unsuccessfully attempt to enforce invalid non-compete or non-solicitation agreements by allowing employees who defeat enforcement claims to recover all costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The Illinois Attorney General is authorized to investigate and sue employers that violate the Act on a regular basis.

Although SB 672 does not take effect until next year, employers should start reviewing and, where appropriate, revising their current non-competition agreements and policies to ensure that they are ready on January 1st to shield themselves from potentially costly litigation.


Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Chicago, IL
  • Denver, CO
  • Dublin, Ireland
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • London, England
  • Miami, FL
  • New York, NY
  • Orange County, CA
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Wilmington, DE
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
800 Boylston St.
30th Floor
Boston, MA 02199
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Chicago, IL
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606-1520
Google Maps
Chicago, Illinois
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Dublin, Ireland
Fitzwilliam Hall, Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2, Ireland
Google Maps
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
101 E. High St.
First Floor
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
7160 Rafael Rivera Way
Suite 320
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
London, England
Royal College of Surgeons of England
38-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London, WC2A 3PE
Google Maps
Miami, FL
355 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Google Maps
Photo of Miami, Florida
New York, NY
7 Times Square, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Google Maps
New York City skyline
Orange County, CA
19800 MacArthur Boulevard
Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Google Maps
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
222 South Main St.
Suite 1830
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington, D.C.
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Google Maps
Photo of Washington, D.C. with the Capitol in the foreground and Washington Monument in the background.
Wilmington, DE
1007 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Google Maps
Wilmington, Delaware