Client Alerts & Insights
Unprecedented Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Law Delayed to July 1, 2024
December 14, 2023
Authored By:
When the Chicago City Council passed the Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) on November 9, 2023, Chicago-based employers had mere weeks to adjust their leave policies to ensure compliance with what has been called the nation’s most generous, aggressive paid leave policy to date, with December 31, 2023, being slated as the Ordinance’s effective date. However, on December 13, 2023, the Chicago City Council voted unanimously to delay the Ordinance’s effective date as well as implement a handful of other changes.
After significant pushback from the City’s business community, the Chicago City Council voted to delay the effective date of the Ordinance from December 31, 2023, to July 1, 2024. This delay will give Chicago-based employers more time to ensure that their policies comply with the unprecedented Ordinance.
Although the six-month delay is likely the main concern for most Chicago-based employers, the City Council did implement a handful of other changes to the Ordinance. First the Ordinance will no longer cover any individual who performs at least two hours of work in the City of Chicago in a two-week period. Instead, the Ordinance will apply to individuals who work 80 hours within the City of Chicago in a 120-day period. Although this change was implemented to address workers who come to Chicago to attend conventions/trade shows, it will likely have implications for other types of workers as well.
Next, the Ordinance will be accompanied by a one-year “cure period” during which time workers do not have a private right of action to sue employers under the Ordinance. Thus, workers can sue employers for violations of the Ordinance starting on July 1, 2025. Between July 1, 2025, and July 1, 2026, employers will have 16 days to correct an alleged violation of the Ordinance before a worker can file a lawsuit.
Until July 1, 2024, Chicago’s original Paid Sick Leave Ordinance remains effective. Under the old ordinance, Chicago-based employees earn one hour of paid sick leave (but not paid leave for any purpose) for every 40 hours they work, up to five days per year.
Events surrounding the Ordinance are developing at a rapid pace, with Benesch highlighting the publication of proposed rules just days before the Council voted to push back the Ordinance’s effective date. Benesch attorneys will continue to monitor the situation, and are prepared to assist employers as they navigate the Ordinance’s requirements.
For more information, please contact:
Margo Wolf O’Donnell at modonnell@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4982.
Elsa Schulz at eschulz@beneschlaw.com or 312.506.3423.
Latest News
Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Estoppel Standard in Bankruptcy Nondisclosure Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a rigid rule that often blocked debtors from pursuing claims they failed to disclose in bankruptcy. Courts must now look at the full circumstances before deciding whether an omission was intentional or an honest mistake.
Federal Court Hands Major Win to Tissue Product Manufacturers – FDA’s HCT/P Classification Decision for Umbilical Cord–Derived Product CORDGRAFT Rejected
On March 18, 2026, Chief Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a significant decision overturning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) classification of Vitti Labs’ umbilical cord–derived product, CORDGRAFT.
Science-Backed But Not FDA-Approved: New Lawsuit Challenges FDA’s Rejection of 114 Health-Related Advertising Claims
A new lawsuit challenges the FDA’s rejection of 114 health-related advertising claims for supplements, arguing that the agency’s narrow interpretation of what counts as an “authoritative statement” unfairly blocks science-backed—but not FDA-approved—claims from appearing on product labels.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.