HB2925 amends the Illinois Whistleblower Act to broaden protections for employees who report or refuse to participate in unlawful or dangerous conduct. The bill prohibits retaliation by an employer, and in some cases a third party, when an employee discloses or threatens to disclose information about a past, current, or future activity, policy, or practice that the employee reasonably and in good faith believes violates a municipal, county, state, or federal law, rule, or regulation, or creates a substantial and specific danger to employees, public health, or safety. It also protects employees who make such disclosures to public bodies, government or law enforcement agencies, supervisors, or related organizational officials.
The bill further expands the refusal-to-participate protections in the Whistleblower Act. An employer could not retaliate against an employee who refuses to take part in an activity the employee believes would lead to a legal violation, including violations of the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, HB2925 changes the remedies available under the Act by allowing employees to recover compensatory damages for violations, increasing the potential liability for employers who retaliate against whistleblowers.
HB2925 would amend Sections 15, 20, and 30 of the Illinois Whistleblower Act, expanding the scope of protected whistleblowing activity and strengthening available damages. It would affect employers across Illinois by increasing legal exposure for retaliation claims and by extending protections to disclosures involving third-party conduct, future conduct, and safety-related concerns. Employees would gain broader statutory protection when reporting suspected legal violations or refusing to participate in conduct they believe is unlawful, and courts would have an expanded damages remedy to apply in whistleblower cases.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided material, the overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger whistleblower protections. The measure is framed as an employee-protection and public-safety bill, suggesting a policy goal of encouraging reporting of wrongdoing and unsafe practices. No formal opposition, amendments, or recorded vote history is included here, so there is no evidence of divided sentiment in the available context.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s broader retaliation standard and expanded liability for employers. Employers and business groups could object to the inclusion of past, current, or future activities, the extension to third-party conduct, and the use of a good-faith belief standard, which may be viewed as increasing litigation risk. Another likely issue is the addition of compensatory damages, which raises the stakes in whistleblower lawsuits. Supporters would likely emphasize the need for stronger protections for workers reporting legal violations, public-health risks, or safety hazards.