Bryan Montana, principal at Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., recently attended an important community meeting held by the Glenview New Development Commission to discuss a series of changes that village staff had proposed to the Glenview Municipal Code. These changes would ban a number of service-based and retail businesses in favor of creating an entertainment district in the downtown area. The list of banned businesses included convenience stores, pet stores, pet groomers, day care centers, physical therapists, massage therapy and chiropractic offices, among others.
The village staff proposed adding several newly permitted businesses to the downtown area, including comedy clubs, wine bars, bowling alleys, restaurants and indoor miniature golf. The Glenview Downtown Development Code states that a revitalized downtown should contain a “mix of businesses and uses.”
The ban of certain types of businesses would not mean existing businesses would need to close, but the new proposal did not address the concerns of property owners who worried about the negative impact such restrictions would have on property values.
“Sure, the existing clinics can stay, but it’s very clear this kind of categorical restriction creates an immediate adverse effect on a property owner’s interest,” said Montana, representing the owner of a physical therapy establishment.
Based on these and other concerns, the Village decided to postpone implementation of the new zoning restrictions indefinitely.
Chuhak & Tecson P.C. is proud to sponsor the Elevate Impact: 2026 Nonprofit Leadership Conference on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, from 12 – 4:00 p.m. at 120 S. Riverside Plaza, Chicago. This half-day event offers nonprofit leaders and funders the opportunity to reflect on and break the cycle of “survival mode.” The conference provides panel discussions, hands-on conversations with experts on branding, AI and more plus structured networking.
The panel will be moderated by DeRondal Bevly, Founder & Managing Director of RubyRose Strategies and features speakers include Heather Alderman, President, Illinois Children’s Healthcare Foundation; Bo Kemp, CEO, Southland Development Authority; Katherine Korey, President, Bright Promises Foundation; Carrie Summy, President, Oak Park River Forest Community Foundation and Kimberly T. Boike, Principal and leader of Chuhak & Tecson’s Healthcare and Nonprofit and Tax Exempt Organizations practice groups.
This event is complimentary and geared toward nonprofits and foundations. With funding volatile, talent stretched and complexity rising, the conference will address how to not just survive but build capacity for growth.
The event is also sponsored by ELEVATE Alliance Group and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. proudly announces that Elizabeth Harvell has joined the firm as an associate in the Estate Planning & Asset Protection group. She brings with her a breadth of experience in family law to the trusts and estates space, allowing her to guide clients through prenuptial agreements and the thoughtful updating of estate plans following divorce or other major life changes.
Harvell comes to Chuhak & Tecson after practicing for five years at a Chambers Band 1-ranked matrimonial law firm in New York City, where she represented high-net-worth individuals, athletes and public figures with complex asset portfolios and multifaceted business and family concerns. This experience informs Harvell’s current work, as she understands the critical importance of thoroughness, collaboration and discretion when protecting her clients’ assets and advancing their interests in estate planning matters.
Lindsey Paige Markus, leader of Chuhak & Tecson’s 25-attorney Estate Planning & Asset Protection group, says that Harvell’s experience working with high-net-worth clients has provided her with valuable perspectives about what it takes to effectively serve and represent such individuals.
“Elizabeth has a very personable and intuitive approach that helps her develop strong client relationships and obtain a full appreciation of the things that matter to them, the issues that concern them and what they want to achieve in their planning,” Markus says. “Those same attributes also allow her to seamlessly coordinate her work with business valuation analysts, family offices, corporate counsel and accountants who play key roles in her clients’ estate planning and asset protection efforts.”
Harvell graduated from Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where she received degrees in Philosophy and English Literature with honors and distinction. She earned her law degree from New York Law School on a full-tuition, merit-based scholarship and served as editor of the New York Law School Law Review and vice chair of the Moot Court Association.
Illinois has attracted significant attention from companies looking to build data centers. Data centers are the “computer rooms” that provide the data storage, data processing and data transmission resources needed by social media, streaming services, artificial intelligence and other digital companies. These centers require substantial capital investment, power and water to serve our ever-growing digital world. The emergence of artificial intelligence has turbo-charged the need for more and larger data centers.
There are roughly 200 data centers in Illinois. Data centers take a number of different forms, including:
- Enterprise data centers tend to be smaller designed for single users like hospitals or banks.
- Colocation data centers serve multiple businesses and take many different forms and are often designed to be shared by multiple tenants.
- Cloud data centers are shared by a great many users who often do not directly manage the physical data center location.
- Hyperscale data centers are massive centers often operated by large tech companies and require significant capital investment to build.
Artificial intelligence requires enormous computing power and is driving the need for more hyperscale data centers. Power, utility and labor needs typically push data centers toward urban areas. Data centers often choose urban areas for the following reasons:
- Data centers need reliable, high speed fiber optic networks. These networks are typically found in only urban areas.
- Significant power is required by data centers to operate properly. Often urban areas have more robust power grids capable of supplying the power needed by data centers.
- Larger data centers require talented labor. A large center may require as many as 200 employees, some of whom will need to be highly skilled. Many rural areas will simply not have an adequate labor pool.
While most data centers in Illinois are found in urban areas, it is possible for some rural locations to work as well. Some rural areas can offer the advantage of lower land acquisition costs and real estate taxes. The persistent issue with rural areas tends to be inadequate power and labor.
In Illinois, it’s been the Chicago-metro area that has attracted the most attention from data center developers. There are already between 130-175 data centers (depending on the definition used) already in existence in Chicago and the Chicago suburbs. Elk Grove Village has multiple large hyperscale centers. Aurora also has a good number of data centers, including multiple CyrusOne centers. There are also a number of data centers in or near downtown Chicago. Digital Realty, QTS and other companies have large data centers in or around downtown Chicago.
There are also data centers located outside Chicagoland. Springfield has 6 data centers. There are also data centers in Rockford, Peoria and Champaign. There are a number of websites that are useful as a resource and highlight the location of data centers. These websites include datacentermap.com and cleanview.co.
In addition to the data center sites already in existence, at least 22 more are in some stage of planning in Illinois. Many of the zoning hearings tied to data center projects have been very contentious. Known proposed projects are taking place in numerous areas of Illinois, including DeKalb, Pekin and Minooka. Projects in Naperville, Yorkville. Lisle and Barrington Hills have been proposed but have run into fierce opposition and/or have been voted down or paused.
Data centers will be needed to facilitate growing demand for artificial intelligence. Count on where they go being a continued source of debate and local drama. Stakes are high in zoning hearings that involve data centers. These projects bring massive capital investment, technological advancement, economic development and jobs to the communities they come to. However, they also bring sweeping neighbor concerns about environmental impacts and utility costs. Despite the controversy surrounding data centers, these are essential to facilitating our increasing digital world. They are not going away. Count on data center proposals to lead headlines in the world of real estate in the years to come.
Client alert authored by Kevin M. Coyne (312 855 5441) Principal
This Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. communication is intended only to provide information regarding developments in the law and information of general interest. It is not intended to constitute advice regarding legal problems and should not be relied upon as such.
As the prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to grow, so have the power needs required by the resource-hungry AI systems that provide the computing power that AI needs to function. The computing power needed for AI to function goes far beyond what even the largest modern computer servers require. To generate the computing power necessary to power AI, specialized and dense hardware, massive memory storage capacity and power generators and cooling infrastructure is needed. The complex and incredibly expensive machinery used to power AI is provided by data centers or “AI factories.” In most cases, data centers require zoning relief approved through public hearings before they can lawfully operate.
There are already roughly two hundred data centers in Illinois. Many more data centers are needed and are currently being proposed in numerous cities around the state. The hearings tied to data center developments have often attracted significant resident push-back and very contentious zoning hearings are common. A few recent hearings in Illinois have led to data centers being voted down.
The stakes are high in these hearings. Data centers are critical and often offer huge economic benefits to a city. However, they also raise significant concerns, including concerns about health and safety. While no two projects are the same, data center developments often offer communities the following benefits:
- Significant financial investment into the community. Data centers often cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build. This massive capital investment generates large direct and indirect economic benefits to a community. Data centers also often pay many millions of dollars in real estate taxes every year.
- Job creation. Data centers are complex structures and usually take years to build. These projects generate a tremendous amount of work for trade workers.
- Infrastructure improvements. Data center projects often lead to upgrades to a community’s power grid, roads, water systems as well as telecom improvements.
- Economic development and business attraction. Data centers often attract other tech industries to a community as well as the vendors needed to service the data center.
- Community investment. Data centers often contribute financially to community job programs, workforce training initiatives, area STEM programs and to trade schools.
While data centers often tout huge economic offerings to a community, not everyone is sold on their value. Residents often arrive in droves to oppose data center developments. Resident concerns have included the following:
- Noise pollution. Data centers found near residential homes have often been accused of being extremely loud and of generating noise, often described as a humming sound, 24 hours a day.
- High water usage. The cooling systems used by data centers require massive amounts of water and some residents fear these centers could pressure — and even lower — water tables and/or dry water wells.
- Drain on the community’s electric grid. The data center’s need for constant, significant power, trigger concerns they could raise electric rates, cause blackouts and/or damage the community’s electric grid.
- Air pollution. The typical data center’s heavy generator usage causes exhaust and raise concerns about air pollution and possible negative health impacts on those living nearby.
- Damage to nearby home values. It is often contended that the various questions about pollution and noise, combined with health concerns, will damage the value of homes found near a data center.
In summary, the economic benefits presented to a community by a large data center can be enormous. However, so are the quality-of-life concerns that are often raised by neighbors to proposed data center sites. AI is not going away. As AI grows, so will the need for these data centers. Virtually all communities of size — and the many stakeholders who stand to benefit from these developments — will need to come to a balanced understanding as to how to move these projects along while addressing the many quality-of-life concerns raised by residents during data center hearings to date.
Client alert authored by Kevin M. Coyne (312 855 5441) Principal
This Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. communication is intended only to provide information regarding developments in the law and information of general interest. It is not intended to constitute advice regarding legal problems and should not be relied upon as such.
Chuhak & Tecson is most pleased to announce the names of its attorneys who have been selected as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars for Illinois for 2026. The following attorneys have well-earned this distinction and are awarded Illinois Super Lawyers in their respective practice areas.
| David J. Bloomberg | Real Estate |
| Edmond M. Burke | Bankruptcy: Business |
| Ashley C. Coppola | Estate & Trust Litigation |
| David J. Feinberg | Estate & Probate |
| Mitchell S. Feinberg | Estate & Trust Litigation |
| Ryan A. Haas | Employment & Labor |
| Tae Y. Kim | Business Litigation |
| Mallory A. Moreno | Elder Law |
| David B. Shiner | Tax |
| Stephen A. Wood | Business Litigation |
Illinois Rising Stars for 2026 are:
| Adrienne M. Arlan | Business Litigation |
| Rebecca M. Cerny | Estate & Probate |
| Martin J. Crowley | Banking |
| Aali S. Fidai | Real Estate |
| Markeya A. Fowler | Employment Litigation: Defense |
| Melissa (Missy) Turk Firmage | Estate & Trust Litigation |
| Olivia R. Wassen | Estate & Probate |
| Nicholas W. Zausch | Estate & Probate |
Super Lawyers is a rating service of premier lawyers including more than 70 practice areas. Selected lawyers have attained a notable degree of peer acknowledgement and professional accomplishments. Super Lawyers provides a patented selection process that includes research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Lawyers are selected from all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
According to Super Lawyers, each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Super Lawyers recognizes no more than 5% of attorneys in each state. Rising Stars recognizes attorneys practicing 10 years or fewer and comprises no more than 2.5 % of attorneys in each state. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis.
Chuhak & Tecson congratulates its Super Lawyers and Rising Stars for 2026.
Tariffs and changing trade policies further complicated a market that was already held back by inflation. There are some positive signs for the Chicagoland industrial real estate market.
Chicagoland saw net absorption of industrial space increase by a positive 2.6 million square feet in Q3. This is welcome news. Overall year-to-date net absorption was still down 59.6% year-over-year through the end of the third quarter of 2025 (these figures are found from quarterly reports offered by CBRE and Cushman & Wakefield respectively). Many industry experts believe this decline in net absorption is attributed to the addition of new offerings being added to the market, namely 1.2 million square feet of new industrial space at Plainfield Logistics Center.
Per Cushman and Wakefield, overall industrial market vacancy rate in Chicagoland rose 40 basis points year-over-year to 4.7% through the end of the third quarter of 2025.
On a positive note, CBRE reports that tenant demand was high in 2025 and outpaced 2024 figures by 43.6% increase year-over-year.
As for new industrial projects, a new multibillion-dollar quantum computing campus called the Illinois Quantum and Microelectronic Park on the South Side is coming online. The goal is for this campus to be a national leading hub that develops the next generation of supercomputers. It is expected to create thousands of jobs.
The Lincoln Yards project, located on vacant land within the North Branch Industrial Corridor, was originally planned as a $6 billion mixed-used property by Sterling Bay. Funding issues and delays have stalled this project, but recent developments have breathed new life into this development. Bank OZK has confirmed that JDL has purchased the northern parcel of Lincoln Yards with a new vision of the project called “Foundry Park.”
While the industrial market has faced challenges in recent years, because of exciting projects coming online, there is room to be optimistic for a strong showing in 2026
Chuhak & Tecson real estate attorneys have substantial experience negotiating office leases throughout Chicagoland. Please contact us should you have questions about your industrial lease or any real estate matter. We stand ready to assist you in all your real estate issues.
Client alert authored by Kevin M. Coyne (312 855 5441) Principal, with research and drafting assistance by Katie Bendalin (312 855 4335), Law Clerk.
This Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. communication is intended only to provide information regarding developments in the law and information of general interest. It is not intended to constitute advice regarding legal problems and should not be relied upon as such.
Street vacation is the legal process by which a city formally transfers, in whole or in part, the public right of way to an adjacent property owner. This is typically done when the public interest is better served by the city relinquishing the real estate to a private user. The process to vacate a street in Chicago is overseen by the Department of Transportation (CDOT) Project Development Division’s Street and Alley Vacation Program. This program has four categories of use – commercial and residential, intergovernmental, not for profit and industrial. Each program category differs in purpose, qualifications and typical use.
Street vacation for commercial and residential use is available to adjacent owners for site expansion, parking, security or other accessory uses that will improve the operation of the participating company or homeowner.
Not for profit street vacation may be granted to not for profit organizations for purposes of expansion and modernization, vehicle and bicycle parking for employees and clients, walkways, security, landscaping and campus improvement and other accessory uses beneficial to the organization or the public. The benefits of the not for profit vacation program are not realized solely by the participating organization, as the public good is also served by the organization’s activities.
City entities may be granted street vacation to serve the changing needs of the public. The intergovernmental entity must be a City of Chicago department or a City agency, such as the CTA.
Street vacation for industrial uses may be utilized for plant expansion, modernization, employee parking, security, truck staging and accessory uses likely to improve the operations of the participating entity. Like the not for profit use category, the benefits of this program are realized by the city through job retention, expanded property tax base, reduced illegal dumping and crime prevention. Uses must be exclusively industrial; projects that include any commercial or residential element must be processed under the commercial and residential program.
Separately, the Department of Public Health and Safety issues PlayStreet grants, which allow residents in prioritized community areas to establish short-term street closures and traffic restrictions for safe play.
After a vacation application is submitted, either electronically or by mail, CDOT coordinates internal review to ensure satisfaction with program guidelines, followed by an agency review to facilitate negotiations with any involved member entities. Approved proposals proceed to City Council for legislative action and once passed, the transfer is recorded with the Cook County Clerk. The typical timeline from CDOT’s receipt of a complete application package to final processing is approximately ten months.
Chuhak & Tecson real estate attorneys have wide-ranging experience and knowledge. Please contact us should you have questions about any real estate matter. We stand ready to assist you in all your real estate issues.
Client alert authored by Kevin M. Coyne (312 855 5441) Principal, with research and drafting assistance by Katie Bendalin (312 855 4335), Law Clerk.
This Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. communication is intended only to provide information regarding developments in the law and information of general interest. It is not intended to constitute advice regarding legal problems and should not be relied upon as such.
Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. congratulates Mallory A. Moreno, principal and leader of the firm’s Elder Law practice, who has been named an “Influential Woman in Law” honoree for Law Bulletin Media’s 6th Annual Women in Law: Leaders Leaning In for 2025. The 2025 honorees were selected for their work to advance other women in the profession, being a shining example of leadership, and their significant individual successes. This honor is a peer-nominated award.
Mallory is a Certified Elder Law Attorney (CELA), an exclusive honor bestowed on a select group of attorneys and one of only 13 CELAs in Illinois. Mallory serves as a voice for the voiceless, a steady hand in times of anxiety and uncertainty and an empathetic counselor and advocate who skillfully protects the interests and well-being of seniors, individuals with disabilities, and the families who love them.
Mallory is also a member of the Board of Directors and past president of the Illinois Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (IL NAELA). She has earned an impressive number of recognitions and awards from her peers for her professional excellence and accomplishments. She is a recurring faculty speaker for the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (IICLE) as well as other organizations and has co-authored a chapter titled “Termination or Modification of Guardianship” in Adult Guardianships, Advance Directives, and Mental Health Law 2025 Edition (IICLE® 2025), one of IICLE’s many comprehensive practice handbooks for Illinois attorneys.
Service plays a vital role in Mallory’s life. She volunteers for the Special Olympics and is both a volunteer and board member of W.A.L.L.S., Inc. (Working Adults Learning Lifelong Skills), a life skills center for adults with disabilities. At Chuhak & Tecson, Mallory currently serves as an ombudsperson for the firm and is also an ambassador for Chuhak & Tecson’s Women Helping Women program. Mentoring is also a pillar of Mallory’s career, and she currently serves on the Pre-Law Alumni Advisory Board for her alma mater, Miami University, in Oxford, Ohio.
Chuhak & Tecson congratulates Mallory on this wonderful acknowledgement.
Over the past fifteen years, artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly embedded in the legal field, often in ways that were not widely anticipated. While it was initially expected that legal professionals would need to familiarize themselves with AI tools to enhance efficiency in practice, few foresaw the necessity for attorneys to possess a deep understanding of AI’s technical functions in order to competently advise clients on the legal ramifications of its use. Although the application of traditional AI to accomplish tasks such as resolve analytical problems or sort large datasets has become routine, the evolution of the technology now enables generative AI to not merely process information, but to autonomously make decisions based on the information presented. Generative AI is capable of generating new content such as images or text by learning from data supplied to it.[i] The most popular examples of generative AI that have been integrated into professionals everyday use are Google’s Gemini and Microsoft’s Copilot. Every time a user drafts an email or a word document or simply completes a search on Google, generative AI is taking that information to provide suggestions and generating responses. Other examples of generative AI include Chat GPT, Meta AI, Claude and many more that are constantly under development.
In recognition of these risks, the Illinois Supreme Court has explicitly cautioned against the uncritical adoption of generative AI in legal proceedings and emphasized the necessity of protecting due process, equal protection and access to justice.[ii] The Illinois Supreme Court warned that AI-generated content, lacking evidentiary foundation or accuracy, may entrench bias, prejudice litigants and obscure truth-finding and decision-making.[iii] While the Illinois Supreme Court’s warning of the unintended consequences of AI was limited to those in the legal profession, the warning is one that should be considered by all users of generative AI.
In particular, there has been an increase of the use of AI in the employment sector, which has resulted in enhanced and efficient decision-making for many employers, particularly in the areas of recruitment and staff management. Employers are using AI to analyze candidate qualifications and employee performance. These practices are frequently justified on the basis that algorithmic decision-making can reduce human bias and produce objective outcomes. At first glance, this practice seems appropriate and can result in quick and efficient decisions, improving the flow of businesses.
Closer scrutiny of this practice by legislatures and legal professionals, however, revealed complex legal and ethical concerns. Critics of generative AI have recognized that the manner in which information is deciphered and sorted may border on improper or cross the line into illegal, replicating or amplifying existing biases. These same critics began to wonder what guidelines and information AI was using to make its decisions. How was the technology making its critical decisions? Was it possible the technology is biased and producing biased results?
At the legislative level, Illinois has recognized the possibility of the misuse of generative AI and the potential consequences and has responded in kind by regulating its use. In the employment context, key statutes that regulate the use of AI include the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (AVIA) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). These legislative enactments focus on transparency of use and prohibiting discrimination through AI. Although the Illinois General Assembly has introduced several bills aimed at establishing broad regulatory oversight of AI, none have yet to be enacted into law. These proposed bills included:
- Illinois Senate Bill 1792, which would amend the Consumer Fraud and Business Practices Act and require owners, licensees or operators of a generative AI system to display a warning on the system user’s interface to notify the user that outputs of the generative AI system may be inaccurate.
- Illinois Senate Bill 2255, which would prohibit the use of surveillance data in an automated decision-making system to set an individuals wage for an employee.
- Illinois House Bill 3567, which would prohibit an Illinois agency or any entity acting on behalf of a state agency from utilizing any automated decision-making system without continuous meaningful human review when performing any of the agency’s specified functions.
Nonetheless, the trajectory suggests that more comprehensive legislation is forthcoming as AI technologies continue to evolve.
Overview of current regulation of AI in Illinois
Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (AVIA)
In place since 2020, but unknown to many employers, the AVIA regulates employers’ use of AI to analyze an applicant’s video recordings for employment positions based in Illinois.[iv] Review of pre-recorded videos, where a candidate responds to a set of questions, is becoming a popular method for employers to assess a candidates qualifications based on their responses. This pre-assessment often determines if a candidate will move forward in the hiring process and receive a more formal interview.
When first enacted, the AVIA imposed three requirements upon employers to ensure transparency regarding the use of AI.[v] Before requesting an applicant to submit an interview video, employers were required to: i) notify applicants before any interview that AI may be used to analyze the applicant’s video and evaluate fitness for the position; ii) notify the applicant before the interview how the potential employer’s AI functions and the general characteristics which AI evaluated from the video; and iii) secure the applicant’s consent to be evaluated by AI.[vi] Employers may not use AI to evaluate applicants if the applicant refuses to provide consent.[vii] Oddly, the AVIA is silent on whether or not the employer has can obligation to still provide an interview if the candidate refuses to provide consent for the use of AI.
Notably, even when an applicant consents, the employer is restricted in its use of the video.[viii] The AVIA prohibits employers from sharing interview videos except with those persons whose expertise or technology is necessary to evaluate the video for the applicant’s fitness for the position.[ix]
AVIA also contains provisions for destruction of an applicant’s video.[x] Within thirty days of an applicant’s request, the employer must delete an applicant’s video including all electronically stored back-up copies.[xi] In addition, the employer must also instruct any persons who received copies of the applicant’s video to delete the videos.[xii]
Since its enactment, AVIA was amended to expand transparency and limit potential bias by any employers who opted to use AI video analysis.[xiii] In 2022, the legislature amended AVIA to include mandatory reporting for any employer who relied solely on artificial intelligence to evaluate applicants.[xiv]Employers are required to report every December 31: (i) the race and ethnicity of applicants who are and are not afforded the opportunity for an in-person interview after the use of AI analysis; and (ii) the race and ethnicity of applicants who are hired.[xv]
Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA)
On January 1, 2025, the Illinois legislature updated the IHRA to prohibit discriminatory employment decisions using AI.[xvi] To prevent any confusion as to what AI is covered under the amended regulations, the Illinois legislature defined AI and generative AI. Under the IHRA, AI is defined as “a machine-based system that for explicit or implicit objectives, infers from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments.”[xvii] This definition explicitly notes that AI includes generative AI.[xviii] Generative AI is defined as “an automated computing system that when prompted with human prompts, descriptions or queries, can produce outputs that simulate human-produced content, including but not limited to, the following:
- Textual outputs such as short answers, essays, poetry or longer compositions or answers;
- Image outputs such as fine art, photographs conceptual art, diagrams and other images;
- Multimedia outputs, such as audio or video in the form of compositions, songs or short-form or long form audio or video; and
- Other content that would be otherwise produced by humans.”[xix]
Effective January 1, 2026, employers will be liable for civil right violations for an employment decision using AI with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure or the terms, privileges or conditions of employment that results in discrimination based on a protected class or that uses zip codes as a proxy for protected classes.[xx] Employers will also be required to provide notice to an employee that an employer is using AI for the prior stated reasons.[xxi] Protected classes under IHRA shall remain race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, order of protection status, disability, military status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, unfavorable discharge from military service, citizenship status, work authorization status, family responsibilities and reproductive health decisions.[xxii]
Potential future regulations in Illinois
As AI continues to be pushed as the key to the future and as companies find new and innovative ways to adopt AI to their business models, state legislatures will need to adapt and respond with regulations to control this expansive industry. Illinois is one of many states that seems to be taking a proactive approach to its regulation of AI, which could have far reaching implications for those who deploy AI and those whose personal information is the subject of AI’s analysis.[xxiii]
On February 7, 2025, the Illinois Senate introduced SB 2203, the Preventing Algorithmic Discrimination Act (PADA).[xxiv] PADA is intended to regulate deployers of AI who use the technology to make consequential decisions. If PADA were to pass, it would regulate private businesses, persons and government agencies who use AI to grant persons access to employment, education, housing, essential utilities, health care, including family planning, financial services, legal services and hearings, voting and access to benefits. Under PADA, users of AI for the purposes enumerated under the Act, would be required to: (i) notify persons who are the subject of any AI decision, (ii) maintain a governance program containing administrative and technical safeguards to measure and manage reasonably foreseeable risks of discrimination and (iii) submit all assessments of the AI tool to the Attorney General. As of publication, SB2203 has made no progress and is unlikely to pass this current legislative session.
Implications for employers
Given the increasing reliance on generative AI in both the private and public sectors, it is imperative that employers consider the manner in which AI is deployed, acquire an in- depth understanding of how it functions and deciphers information and never rely on AI to be the sole decision maker. If employers are already using AI in any employment related decisions, it is necessary for employers to review company practices to ensure oversight of AI systems and review service providers agreements to understand how the system is reaching its decisions. Failure to do so may expose employers to significant legal liability.
AI systems are designed to autonomously process and analyze vast volumes of data. While beneficial, this process also increases the potential for unintended discrimination, which is now explicitly prohibited under the IHRA. If AI tools are the sole decision makers in recruitment, salaries, performance evaluations or disciplinary decisions, there is an increased risk that it may reinforce or exacerbate existing biases. Crucially, many employers may not be fully aware when AI decision-making crosses the line into discriminatory territory. Discrimination can manifest in two ways:
- Disparate Treatment – when individuals are treated differently based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, age or disability.
- Disparate Impact – when a seemingly neutral AI policy or algorithm disproportionately affects a protected group, even if unintentionally.
Both forms of discrimination can expose employers to costly civil litigation, regulatory investigations and class action lawsuits. In conjunction with the cost of litigation, employers may find themselves liable for claimant’s lost benefits, unpaid wages, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.
In 2014, while developing AI software to examine candidate resumes, Amazon was forced to terminate a project after determining it would result in disparate impact.[xxv] The software was designed to review resumes and determine which applicants should be hired but Amazon discovered it was discriminating against female applicants in technical positions, such as software engineers.[xxvi] When developing the software, Amazon used its own employees’ resumes as a data set for desired qualifications and these employees were predominately male.[xxvii] When the software was asked to discover other resumes from the existing data set, it sought to reproduce the demographics of the existing workforce, discriminating against female candidates.[xxviii] The software accomplished this by downgrading resumes that listed women’s colleges or activities that contained women in the title.[xxix] Luckily for Amazon, this flaw in the software was discovered early enough that it had no real impact. Employers who choose to use similar methods to screen candidates, must be similarly vigilant.
Another source of exposure Illinois employers should remain cognizant of is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).[xxx] BIPA requires users of software that capture biometric information to notify the individual their biometric information is being captured, specify the purpose of the collection, the period of time the biometric information will stored and obtain a written release, prior to collecting any biometric information.[xxxi] Employers who use AI facial recognition in conjunction with video interviews, such as to analyze facial expressions, speech patterns and other non-verbal cues to assess personality traits and confidence, could face liability under AVIA and BIPA. Violations of BIPA have led to substantial settlements and penalties in recent years including Facebook’s $650 million settlement,[xxxii] Google’s $100 million settlement,[xxxiii] and TikTok’s $92 million settlement.[xxxiv]
While Illinois’ smaller employers are unlikely to face settlements comparable to the country’s largest organizations, these substantial settlements should serve as a cautionary tale of the implications of unchecked AI. As the technology advances, so too must the diligence with which it is implemented and monitored.
Conclusion
As AI continues to evolve and embed itself in core business functions, the need for comprehensive oversight and responsible use becomes increasingly urgent. Illinois has taken a proactive stance in recognizing both the potential benefits and significant risks associated with generative AI, particularly in the employment sector. Through legislation like the Artificial Intelligence in Video Act and amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act, the state has prioritized transparency, accountability and the prevention of discrimination. Looking ahead, proposed legislation such as the Preventing Algorithmic Discrimination Act signals a broader regulatory framework that could reshape how AI is governed across industries. Businesses that adopt AI must move beyond convenience and efficiency to fully understand AI’s capabilities and its limitations. Failure to do so could expose companies to substantial legal liability. In this rapidly changing landscape, staying informed and compliant is not just advisable … it is essential.
Client alert authored by Markeya A. Fowler, (312 849 4126), associate.
This Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. communication is intended only to provide information regarding developments in the law and information of general interest. It is not intended to constitute advice regarding legal problems and should not be relied upon as such.
[i] Merriam Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generative%20AI
[ii] Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, effective January 1, 2025, https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf
[iii] Id.
[iv] 820 ILCS 42-5
[v] Id.
[vi] Id.
[vii] Id.
[viii] Id. at 42-10
[ix] Id.
[x] Id. at 42-15
[xi] Id.
[xii] Id.
[xiii] Id at 42-20
[xiv] Id.
[xv] Id.
[xvi] 775 ILCS 5/2-102
[xvii] Id at 101(M)
[xviii] Id.
[xix] Id. at 101(N)
[xx] Id. at 101 (L)(1)
[xxi] Id. at 101 (L)(1)
[xxii] Id. at 101 (E-1)
[xxiii] Texas enacted the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Act, Colorado enacted the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act and California, Georgia, Hawaii and Washington have bills pending.
[xxiv] https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/104/SB/PDF/10400SB2203lv.pdf
[xxv] Why Amazon’s Automated Hiring Tool Discriminated Against Women, Rachel Goodman, October 12, 2018, https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/why-amazons-automated-hiring-tool-discriminated-against#:~:text=But%2C%20according%20to%20a%20Reuters%20report%20this,technical%20jobs%2C%20such%20as%20software%20engineer%20positions.
[xxvi] Id.
[xxvii] Id.
[xxviii] Id.
[xxix] Id.
[xxx] 740 ILCS 14/15
[xxxi] Id. at 14/15 (b)
[xxxii] In re Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litigation, No. 3:15-cv-03747-JD (N.D. Cal. 2020).
[xxxiii] Rivera, et al. v. Google, 1:2016-cv-02714 (N.D. Ill 2018)
[xxxiv] In re TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 1:2020-cv-04699 (N.D. Ill 2024)