Caffarelli & Associates LtD

News

2 minutes read

Illinois Limits the Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants

Published

by Nicole Young

On January 1, 2022, an employee-leaning amendment to the Illinois Freedom to Work Act (IFWA) took effect. In response to a growing national concern over lower-paid employees being burdened with post-employment restrictive covenants, the IFWA was amended to determine the enforceability of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements based on employee compensation. Specifically, non-compete agreements with employees earning less than $75,000 annually are now unenforceable, and employers are prohibited from entering into non-solicitation agreements with employees who earn less than $45,000 annually. These income thresholds will increase every five years until 2037.

The amended IFWA offers additional protections to employees outside of the income thresholds. To begin, the statute renders unenforceable non-compete and non-solicitation agreements where the employee is terminated, furloughed, or laid off as a result of certain circumstances related to COVID-19 or a similar situation, unless during the enforcement period the employer provides the employee with compensation equal to the employee’s base salary at the time of termination, minus compensation earned through subsequent employment during the enforcement period. It also requires at least two years or more of continued employment post-execution of a restrictive covenant, or alternatively, additional professional or financial benefits, in order for the covenant to be enforceable. Furthermore, employers must provide a copy of any non-compete and/or non-solicitation agreements to an employee 14 days prior to the start of employment and advise the employee in writing to consult with an attorney prior to signing. Moreover, an employee who prevails on an employer’s claim to enforce a restrictive covenant can recover all incurred costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Finally, employers who engage in a “pattern or practice” of violating the IFWA are subject to civil penalties.

These changes are not retroactive, applying only prospectively to non-compete and non-solicitation agreements entered into after the effective date. Still, they will likely make employers reconsider being overly aggressive in the drafting and enforcement of these types of restrictive covenants, offering much-needed relief to lower-paid employees. For additional information on this law or restrictive covenants generally, please contact Caffarelli & Associates Ltd.

Back to News

Recent Posts

Blog

Illinois Supreme Court Expands Pay Rights for Pre-Shift Work Under Wage Law

In a major win for Illinois workers, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that employees may be entitled to pay for required pre-shift and post-shift activities—even when federal law would not require compensation. The landmark ruling strengthens employee rights to compensation for required workplace activities. In Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, the court addressed whether the Illinois Minimum Wage Law adopts a major limitation from federal law that excludes certain “preliminary” and “postliminary” activities from paid time. The court answered no....

Read More
Blog

Figueroa and the Fight Over Who Gets to Enforce Workplace Rights in Illinois

A recent Cook County decision in Figueroa v. Visual Pak Holdings, LLC  (available at Figueroa v Visual Pak 3_6_26-1-Opinion) could have major consequences for temporary workers in Illinois and for the organizations that help them enforce their rights. In March 2026, the court held that Section 67 of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act (IDTLSA)—the provision allowing an “interested party” to sue over alleged violations—was unconstitutional. The court concluded that the statute improperly gave private organizations authority that...

Read More
Blog

Whitney Barr Featured in CBA Record

Caffarelli & Associates associate attorney Whitney Barr is featured in the March/April 2026 issue of the CBA Record, where she explores the important role juries should play in sexual-harassment cases. Whitney argues that courts too often dismiss these claims at summary judgment, even though they turn on fact-intensive questions about workplace conduct, harm, and credibility. Her article explains why juries are often better positioned to evaluate whether harassment was severe enough to violate the law and why preserving that role...

Read More