Appellate Court Refuses to Extend Personnel Records Review Act to Require Copying
In Scanlon v. Ignite, Org., the 1st District Appellate Court (Chicago) ruled that the plain language of the Illinois Personnel Records Review Act provides that an employee has a right to review of his or her personnel file, but not to a copy of that file.
The case addresses a situation in which a former employee sought his personnel file after termination. According to the opinion:
The complaint alleged that on June 16, 2021, Ignite ‘acknowledged receipt of [Mr.] Scanlon’s request for his personnel file and knowingly and willfully refused to comply with production of any of [Mr. Scanlon’s] personnel records through correspondence by their counsel.’ In response, Mr. Scanlon’s attorney informed Ignite that Mr. Scanlon was unable to review his personnel file in person because he had moved to Florida, which was the reason for the request that the file be sent to his attorney. Mr. Scanlon’s attorney also offered Ignite an extension to comply with the request and ‘re-iterated that any copying expenses incurred by [Ignite] would be paid by [Mr.] Scanlon’s counsel.’
The Court, in analyzing Plaintiff’s claim of violation of the Personnel Records Review Act, cited the Act’s plain language:
An employee who is involved in a current grievance against the employer may designate in writing a representative of the employee’s union or collective bargaining unit or other representative to inspect the employee’s personnel record which may have a bearing on the resolution of the grievance ….
820 ILCS 40/5 (in relevant portion only, emphasis added). The Court held that the foregoing explicitly provides for inspection of the record, not a copy of the same, and that, therefore, Mr. Scanlon was not entitled to recovery for violation of the Personnel Records Review Act.
While the case may provide tempting reasoning for an employer to play hardball with a former employee, it should be noted that the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act generally provides for a right of the Union to certain information necessary to represent its members (See, generally, 115 ILCS 5/3(c)). Additionally, it is noteworthy that while the cost and time necessary to copy an employee’s file may be somewhat onerous, it is an awful lot cheaper than defending a lawsuit regarding the failure to disclose the same.