Whistleblower protections empower employees to speak up about illegal or unsafe practices without fear of retaliation. In Illinois, the Illinois Whistleblower Act (IWA) provides broad state-level safeguards, while various federal laws (such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the False Claims Act, and OSHA’s whistleblower provisions) offer protections in specific contexts. Recent case examples will illustrate how these laws are applied, and we’ll close with practical takeaways for employees seeking to understand their rights.
Overview of the Illinois Whistleblower Act
Scope and Coverage: The Illinois Whistleblower Act (740 ILCS 174) protects Illinois employees – in both private and government sectors – from retaliation for reporting or refusing to engage in unlawful conduct.
Protected Activity under IWA: The IWA prohibits employers from taking retaliatory action against an employee for:
- Disclosing or threatening to disclose information about the employer’s activity, policy, or practice that the employee in good faith believes violates any state or federal law, rule, or regulation or poses a substantial and specific danger to employee or public health or safety. As of January 1, 2025 amendment, this protection applies to reports made internally (e.g. to a supervisor or company official) as well as reports to external authorities.
- Refusing to participate in illegal activity: The IWA also shields employees who refuse to engage in an act that would violate the law. In other words, you cannot be fired or disciplined for saying “no” when asked to break a state or federal law (e.g. falsifying records or violating safety regulations).
What Counts as Retaliation: The definition of “retaliatory action” under Illinois law is very broad. It includes any adverse employment action or threat that would dissuade a reasonable worker from whistleblowing. This of course covers obvious actions like firing, demotion, pay cuts, denial of promotions, or discipline. But Illinois explicitly goes further – retaliation need not be job-related. Actions like blacklisting the worker with other employers or even threatening to call immigration authorities about an employee’s status are expressly prohibited forms of retaliation under the IWA.
Procedures and Filing: An employee who believes they suffered retaliation in violation of the IWA can file a civil lawsuit against the employer. Unlike many federal laws, there is norequirement to file a complaint with a government agency first – you can go directly to court. The Illinois’s Attorney General also has authority to investigate and even intervene in whistleblower cases; the AG can sue an employer on the people’s behalf or join an employee’s lawsuit to seek relief. The AG typically does not get involved in whistleblower lawsuits in Illinois.
Remedies under IWA: The Illinois Whistleblower Act was recently strengthened to provide enhanced remedies for prevailing employees.
Available relief includes “all relief necessary to make the employee whole,” such as:
- Reinstatement to your job (with the same seniority and status as if you’d never been retaliated against).
- Back pay for lost wages, plus interest
- Front pay (future lost wages)
- Compensation for damages like emotional distress and any costs incurred due to the retaliation, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney’s fees
- Injunctive relief – courts can issue orders to stop the retaliation or take other actions to correct it.
- Liquidated damages up to $10,000 as a penalty for the employer.
Illinois-Based Whistleblower Claims Are Less Likely To Get Dismissed
In our experience, courts are more likely to dismiss state-law whistleblower claims (i.e., IWA and common law Retaliatory Discharge claims) through summary judgment. Illinois courts have long held that “the question of whether there is a causal connection to an employee's discharge or whether an employee was discharged for a valid, nonpretextual reason is usually not ripe for a summary judgment.” Michael, 2011 IL App (5th) 100089, ¶ 34 (reversing summary judgement where a defendant argued it had sufficient grounds for termination). In Hubert v. Board of Ed., 2020 IL App (1st) 190790 ¶¶ 25, 28 the plaintiff alleged he was fired for investigating irregularities, while the employer claimed the termination was due to misconduct. The court explained: “We are presented with a classic case of both sides presenting evidence to support their positions and advancing a narrative that could be true. In such a case, summary judgment is not appropriate.” Id. at ¶ 24. Critically, the court reaffirmed that a plaintiff “does not need to prove anything at the summary judgment stage” and the trial court improperly resolved a disputed question of fact—namely, whether the stated reason for termination was a pretext which is “a question of material fact, not normally suitable for resolution on summary judgment.” See also, Zuccolo v. Hannah Marine Corp., 387 Ill. App. 3d 561, 568–69 (1st Dist. 52 2008) (in reversing, noting that circumstantial evidence based on timing precluded summary judgment); Siekierka v. United Steel Deck, Inc., 373 Ill. App. 3d 214, 222 (3d Dist. 2007) (reversing summary judgment in dispute over whether termination was motivated by his protected conduct); Kirchhoff v. Chem Processing, Inc., 2023 WL 157922, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2023) (even where disobedience could be valid termination ground, a jury could still find unlawful retaliation). As the Illinois Supreme Court put it, the question is not whether the employer had some facially valid basis, but whether “the trier of fact believes that it did.” Michael v. Precision Alliance, 2014 IL 117376, ¶ 39. See also Hartlein v. Ill. Power Co., 151 Ill. 2d 142, 163, 176 (1992) (“The ultimate issue is the employer’s motive in discharging the employee”).
Recent decisions underscore the point. In White v. Deere & Co., No. 4:23-cv-04022-SLD, 2025 WL 208757, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2025), the employer cited alleged intervening misconduct (heated exchange, negative coworker reports, on-the-job drinking) after protected safety complaints; the court held motive was for the jury. The court explained that “ample evidence of terminable misconduct is, by itself, similarly insufficient to warrant summary judgment”. Id. at *1. Likewise, in Patel v. Cook Cnty. Health & Hosp. Sys., 2024 IL App (1st) 230758-U (June 14, 2024), the court reversed summary judgment despite the employer’s reliance on HIPAA and job-abandonment allegations, holding that where both parties marshal evidence of motive, the fact-finder must decide. Id. ¶ 21.
Burden of Proof (IWA): In an IWA lawsuit, the employee must prove that their whistleblowing was at least a contributing factor in the employer’s decision to take action against them. The law then effectively shifts the burden to the employer to prove a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason. Illinois codified that it is a defense if the employer can show the adverse action “was predicated solely upon grounds other than the employee’s exercise of rights” under the Act. In plain language, if your employer would have made the same decision entirely for reasons unrelated to your report (for example, a genuinely unrelated performance issue or companywide layoff), they won’t be liable. But if your whistleblowing was one factor at all in the decision, the employer cannot escape liability by simply pointing to other reasons. This “solely for other reasons” defense sets a high bar for employers – essentially reflecting a mixed-motive standard where any retaliatory motive taints the action. (We’ll compare this to federal burden-shifting standards shortly.)
Rules Against Disclosing Information: Section 10 of the Illinois Whistleblower Act also prohibits an employer from making, adopting or enforcing “any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation.” 740 ILCS 174/10. Courts have recognized that unwritten directives and workplace practices may qualify as “rules” within the meaning of Section 10 if they operate with the same force as written policies. See Strzykalski v. Bd. of Educ., No. 23-cv-1284, 2024 WL 580012, at *5–7 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2024) (principal’s directive to keep matters “in-house” plausibly alleged a de facto §10 rule, even without proof it actually chilled reporting); Mercer v. Favorite Healthcare Staffing, Inc., No. 22-cv-766, 2023 WL 2456371, at *7–8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2023) (employer’s maxim “what happens in Favorite stays in Favorite” plausibly alleged a §10 policy).
Other Illinois Whistleblower Laws: Illinois also has other whistleblower protections codified within other laws. For example, the Illinois Hospital Report Card Act (“IHRCA”), 210 ILCS 86/1 et seq., contains specific whistleblower protections for hospital employees who report or object to unsafe patient care practices or legal violations in the hospital setting. Section 35 makes it unlawful for a hospital to “penalize, discriminate, or retaliate in any manner” against an employee who, in good faith, “objects to or refuses to participate in any activity, policy, or practice of the hospital that violates the Act or any law or rule of the Department or that a reasonable person would believe poses a risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a patient or the public.” 210 ILCS 86/35(a)(3). This law is broader that the IWA because it covered both objecting to and refusing to participate. Be careful if you are proceeding under this law as it sometimes requires that internal written notice be provided before filing a claim in court.
Key Federal Whistleblower Laws and Protections
Federal whistleblower protections are scattered across numerous statutes. Unlike the IWA’s broad coverage of any legal violations, each federal law tends to focus on a particular subject matter or industry. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) contains a whistleblower provision (18 U.S.C. § 1514A) protecting employees of publicly traded companies (i.e. companies with shares registered under the Securities Exchange Act) or their subsidiaries, affiliates, and contractors. The federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) is primarily a fraud-fighting law, but it also contains a whistleblower anti-retaliation section. The FCA’s retaliation protections (31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)) cover any employees, contractors, or agents of a company, in any industry, who are retaliated against for trying to stop fraud against the federal government. The False Claims Act is distinctive in that it allows extra damages for retaliation. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) includes a whistleblower provision, Section 11(c), that protects employees who raise workplace safety or health concerns. This protection generally covers most private sector employees in industries subject to OSHA regulation (which is almost all businesses affecting interstate commerce).
Key Differences Between Illinois and Federal Whistleblower Laws
Now that we’ve outlined the Illinois Whistleblower Act and some major federal laws, let’s compare them in key areas.
Understanding these differences can help an employee choose the best path (or pursue multiple avenues) when blowing the whistle:
- Coverage (Who is Protected and Who is Regulated): The IWA covers virtually all employers in Illinois, including those with just 1 employee and including public sector employers like cities, counties, school districts, state agencies, etc. Federal whistleblower laws, by contrast, each have limited coverage (i.e., SOX only covers publicly traded companies)
- The OSH Act covers most private businesses, but not government employers and not certain very small sectors (e.g., family farms).
- The False Claims Act is broad in that it can apply to any employer (public or private) if the whistleblowing involves fraud on the federal government. But it won’t cover whistleblowing on purely private matters. Illinois by contrast, has its own state-based False Claims Act.
- Scope of Wrongdoing Covered: The IWA is extremely broad in what issues you can report. It protects reporting of any violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation, as well as reporting substantial dangers to public health or safety. This encompasses everything from financial fraud to environmental hazards to wage theft to public corruption – as long as it’s a legal violation or safety threat. By contrast, each federal law is limited:
- SOX cares about financial/securities fraud affecting investors.
- OSHA cares about workplace safety/health violations.
- FCA cares about fraud against government coffers.
- If your whistleblowing doesn’t fit one of these federal buckets, there may not be a federal retaliation statute for it – but the Illinois Whistleblower Act likely still applies. For example, if you report your employer for violating a consumer protection law or dumping toxic waste in violation of state law, there isn’t a specific federal whistleblower statute for consumer fraud or toxic waste (unless under an EPA law). The IWA would cover you because it’s a violation of a law. This breadth is a big advantage of the IWA – it fills gaps where federal statutes are silent.
Practical Takeaways for Employees
For Illinois employees trying to decide how to blow the whistle and protect themselves, here are some key points and tips:
- Know Your Rights Before You Report: If you see wrongdoing, try to identify what law it might violate. This will help you invoke the right protections. For example, financial fraud might fall under SOX, fraud on government under the FCA, safety issues under OSHA laws, and virtually anything unlawful under the Illinois Whistleblower Act. It’s perfectly fine if more than one law applies – you don’t have to choose just one. Being aware of the coverage ensures you report to the right person/agency (if needed) and within the required time. When in doubt, the Illinois Whistleblower Act is a good safety net since it covers any legal violations in Illinois.
- Mind the Deadlines: Federal whistleblower laws often have very short filing deadlines. If you suspect retaliation, do not delay in contacting the appropriate agency.
- Internal vs. External Reporting: Thanks to the updated law, you are now protected in Illinois for reporting issues internally to leadership. Often it’s best to start by reporting up the chain or to an internal ethics hotline – many companies have policies encouraging that. Document your report (who you told, when, and what was said). Internal reporting can fix problems early and shows you gave the company a chance. However, some situations require going outside (e.g., if the issue is criminal or if you fear evidence will be destroyed).
- Whistleblow in Good Faith and, if Possible, Keep it Legal: The IWA and most laws protect you for good faith reporting – you don’t have to be right about a violation, but you must honestly believe it’s a violation or danger. Don’t fabricate or deliberately exaggerate.
- Consider Both State and Federal Options: When you consult an employment attorney will likely evaluate all potential claims. In many cases, filing a complaint with a state or federal agency can be helpful to start an investigation and help assure that evidence is preserved for a lawsuit that can take years. Also, the IWA can cover areas the feds don’t, and vice versa. For example, an Illinois public employee reporting mismanagement might use the IWA (since federal OSHA or SOX wouldn’t cover them), whereas an Illinois employee of a Wall Street firm might lean on SOX and Dodd-Frank in addition to IWA for maximum protection.
- Remedies – Strategize Your End Goal: Think about what you want as an outcome. Do you want your job back? The IWA and most federal laws allow reinstatement. Many whistleblowers do get reinstated or a settlement in lieu of it. Do you want a reward for exposing fraud? Then the False Claims Act qui tam route or SEC whistleblower program might be of interest – those have reward mechanisms the IWA lacks. Are you primarily looking for compensation for your ordeal? Both state and federal can provide back pay and damages; the FCA’s double back pay or the possibility of punitive damages under certain federal laws might yield more money, whereas the IWA now provides some punitive element too. Discuss with your attorney – sometimes pushing a federal claim in front of a jury can incentivize a higher settlement, but other times a state court might be more favorable. It often depends on the specifics of your case (the evidence, the employer, the venue).
- Retaliation Can Be Subtle – Know the Signs: Not all retaliation is a direct firing. Demotion, pass-over for promotion, pay cuts, hostile behavior, unwarranted poor reviews, exclusion from meetings – these can all be retaliation. If these happen after your whistleblowing, raise the issue (in writing) with higher management or HR: e.g., “I feel I’m being penalized for raising safety concerns.”
- Confidentiality and Anonymous Reporting: If you’re afraid of retaliation, you might consider reporting anonymously or through a hotline. Keep in mind, to be protected as a whistleblower, your employer’s decision-makers need to be aware that you (or someone) raised a concern. If they truly don’t know you did, they logically can’t be retaliating because of it. That said, if an issue gets raised (even anonymously) and then a particular manager suspects you and targets you, you could still have a case.
- Retaliation for Whistleblowing is Illegal – Period: This may sound obvious, but it’s worth internalizing: if you report something in good faith and then find yourself punished, you have legal recourse. Both Illinois and federal laws are on your side. Don’t let an employer tell you otherwise or intimidate you into silence. Retaliation often feels unfair and is often blatantly unfair – the law recognizes that. Even if you’re an “at-will” employee who can normally be fired for any reason, being fired for whistleblowing is a wrongful termination under law. The IWA or federal statutes give you the right to sue for reinstatement and damages in that scenario. Many employees fear they can’t fight back – but these laws exist to empower you.
- Whistleblower Rewards Programs: If your information involves securities law violations or large-scale fraud, there are reward programs (SEC, CFTC, IRS, and the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions) that might net you a percentage of fines or recoveries. These are beyond anti-retaliation and require separate steps (e.g., SEC whistleblower tips can be filed online with the SEC Office of the Whistleblower). Participating in those programs typically also gives you anti-retaliation protection under federal law (for example, filing an SEC tip and being fired for it would allow a Dodd-Frank Act retaliation suit, though note you must report to the SEC to invoke it after the Digital Realty case). If a reward is a major motivator, talk to a lawyer about those options early – you often need to be the first to report and follow certain protocols to be eligible.
- Settlement and Remedies in Practice: Many whistleblower retaliation claims settle before trial. Be prepared that a settlement might involve a monetary payment and sometimes an agreement not to return to work (instead of reinstatement