Illinois is a centrally located Midwestern state bordered by Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Indiana. Its capital is Springfield, while Chicago anchors the state’s population and economy as a global hub for finance, transportation, culture, and commerce.
Illinois features a mix of prairie landscapes, industrial centers, and agricultural regions, and is home to major universities, Fortune 500 companies, and one of the busiest transportation networks in the United States.
With Illinois enacting HB4758, effective January 1, 2027, human resources leaders should evaluate the law’s broader implications for hiring practices.
The new law prohibits employers from listing a driver’s license as a job requirement unless driving is both an essential function of the position and a business necessity. Illinois joins a growing number of jurisdictions that are removing unnecessary barriers to employment and expanding access to qualified candidates.
Although HB4758 does not directly address background screening procedures, it raises an important question: If a role does not justify a driver’s license requirement, should an employer conduct a Motor Vehicle Record (MVR) check at all?
What HB4758 Does Not Change
HB4758 does not modify existing Illinois background screening laws. Employers may still obtain MVR reports as part of the hiring process.
For positions where operating a vehicle is a core responsibility, requiring a driver’s license and reviewing an applicant’s driving record remains a standard and legally supportable practice.
Employers may still discover driving-related offenses, such as DUI or OWI, through criminal record searches even when an MVR is not obtained.
Why Illinois Employers Should Reevaluate MVR Screening for Non-Driving Roles
Longstanding EEOC guidance provides that employment screening criteria should be job-related and consistent with business necessity. If an employer cannot justify requiring a driver’s license under HB4758, it may be difficult to demonstrate that an applicant’s driving record is relevant to the position.
Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.
The growing number of jurisdictions permitting medical marijuana is putting employers in a tough position. One the one hand, marijuana remains illegal under federal law and a workforce under the influence isn’t much of a workforce at all. On the other hand, 23 states and the District of Columbia now permit the use of marijuana for regulated medical purposes and some state laws include anti-discrimination provisions prohibiting employers from taking action against employees based on their status as a registered medical marijuana user.
A first-of-its-kind lawsuit demonstrates the conundrum. In December, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in a Rhode Island state court on behalf of an individual who allegedly was denied an internship after she disclosed that she lawfully carried a medical marijuana card for severe migraines.
According to the complaint, the company told the applicant that she had been rejected because of her status as a cardholder, and despite promises not to bring medical marijuana on the premises or come to work under the influence, the applicant was denied the position.
The lawsuit charges that the company violated Rhode Island’s medical marijuana law which prohibits schools, employers, and landlords from refusing “to enroll, employ, or lease to, or otherwise penalize, a person solely for his or her status as a cardholder.” The complaint – which also includes allegations of disability discrimination under state law – seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Employers in states permitting medical marijuana would be well-advised to review their relevant law when considering marijuana use or marijuana-related criminal records in employment decisions. While Rhode Island is not alone in including an anti-discrimination requirement in its law, joined by Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and New York, other states – including California, Massachusetts, and New York – are clear that employers have no obligation to accommodate an employee’s medical marijuana use or permit them to work under the influence.
Read the complaint.
Effective January 1, 2011, the Act will prohibit employers, in many circumstances, from inquiring about or using an employee’s or prospective employee’s credit history as a basis for employment, recruitment, discharge, or compensation. The Act also will prohibit an employer from retaliating or discriminating against a person who files a complaint under the Act, participates in an investigation, proceeding or action concerning a violation of the Act, or opposes violation of the Act. Pursuant to the Act, an employer will not:
Exceptions to the Act are as follows:
The Act also states that nothing in its provisions shall prohibit employers from conducting a thorough background investigation which may include obtaining a consumer report and/or investigative report without information on credit history, as permitted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
