Illinois Exclusive Remedy

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE 

Worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for employees who suffer an injury that arises from and occurs in the course of employment. 820 ILCS 305/5(a) 

This means that the employee (or, if he dies, his dependents) cannot sue the employer for personal injury, such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury.  

To avoid the rule, the employee must show that her injury: 

• Was not accidental; 

• Did not arise from her employment; 

• Was not received during the course of her employment; or 

• Is not compensable. 

LAWSUITS AGAINST THIRD PARTIES 

Employees may still sue third parties (not their employer or co-employees) who contributed to the injury.  

INTENTIONAL WRONG EXCEPTION 

If the employer acted intentionally to cause the injury, the worker can sue for neligence or other torts, even if the injury would otherwise be compensable under the workers’ compensation act. 

More specifically, the exclusivity rule does not protect the employer from such a lawsuit if the employer: 

• Intentionally inflicted the injury; or  

• Commanded or expressly authorized the injury. 

Types of intentional injuries are: 

• Defamation 

• Assault 

• Battery 

• Invasion of privacy 

• Confinement against the employees will 

• Fraud 

INTENTIONAL WRONG EXCEPTION – INJURIES BY CO-EMPLOYEE 

If a co-employee intentionally injures an employee, the injury is still considered accidental with the meaning of the IWCA. This because such injuries are unexpected and unforeseeable from the injured employee's point of view. There are two exceptions to this rule:  

1. Where the employer or its alter ego (agent) intentionally inflicts the injury. 

2. Where the employer commanded or expressly authorized the injury. 

Another employee qualifies as an "alter ego" of the employer if he, in a practical sense, speaks for the employer. The fact that an employee who causes the injury is a supersivor is not by itself sufficient to show he is an alter ego of the employer. 

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE EXCEPTION 

This exception involves the rare situation where the employer occupies a separate role unrelated to employment. An example is a product manufacturer whose defective product injures the employee.  

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE 

If an employer fails to maintain workers’ compensation coverage during the time when the accident occurs, the employee may sue the employer for damages in civil court. 

RECENT CASES 

Kordas v. Bob’s All Bright Electric, Inc., No. 3-24-0482 (Ill. Ct. App. 09/03/25) 

The son of the owner of an electric company, unprovoked, hit his colleague over the head with a shovel multiple times while the colleague was working on an electrical panel. The exclusive remedy rule did not apply because the victim could not show that the employer acted intentionally. The owner knew his son had mental health challenges, but did not know that he posed a danger at work. 

Wong v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., No. 20-cv-1470. (N.D. Ill. 03/05/21) 

The employee was a public relations associate who claimed she was sexually assaulted by her boss. She sued the company for negligent supervision. She argued that she could sue because she was seeking punitive damages, which the IWCA does not allow. Whether the exclusivity rule applies to injury, the court said, depends on whether the injury is compensable, not on the remedy the injured employee prefers. It dismissed the claim. 

Copeland v. Johnson, LLC, No. 18-cv-3780 (N.D. Ill. 09/26/19) 

A Lieutenant punched a firefighter in the face twice, causing him to lose consciousness. This happened after the firefighter revealed that the Lieutenant had incorrectly ordered him to enter a burning building when the firefighter. The exclusive remedy rule did not apply, the court held. The employee could not avoid that rule just by demonstrating that the lieutenant had some decision-making authority within the department. The employee, further, didn’t show that department or the city knew of or allowed the injurious conduct or knew there was a substantial likelihood that injurious conduct would occur.  

McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, No. 126511 (Ill. Sup. Ct. 02/03/22). 

The workers compensation act does not bar employees from suing employer for violating the Biometric Information Privacy Act. This type of injury is not one which is covered by the IWCA. 

Share This Article: