Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PRIVACY—Ill. App.: Dismissal of action against state police department for requiring employee medical info upheld, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Rebecca E. Hoffman, J.D.

The Illinois Appellate Court agreed with the trial court that the state had not waived sovereign immunity from suit.

A former police dispatcher’s claim against the Illinois State Police, alleging the state violated the Genetic Information Privacy Act by requiring that she provide family health history as a condition of employment, was correctly dismissed, the Illinois Appellate Court decided (Pierson v. Illinois State Police, No. 23 CH 9190 (Ill. App. Aug. 28, 2026)).

The plaintiff alleged that the police department required her to disclose “genetic information,” in violation of the statute, which prohibits employers, including the state, from requiring such information as a condition of employment. The statute provides that an employee required to provide such information may sue in state court.

“The dispositive question is whether the Act expressly authorizes damages against the State,” the court explained, given that the plaintiff did not challenge dismissal of her injunctive or declaratory claims. The plaintiff argued that waiver of sovereign immunity arises from the statute’s inclusion of the state as an “employer” subject to its prohibitions. The court disagreed, finding that the section of the statute discussing damages mentions an “offending party” but does not expressly include the state. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that “general language imposing costs [does] not waive sovereign immunity; consent ‘must appear in affirmative statutory language,’” the court said, quoting Department of Revenue v. Appellate Court, 67 Ill. 2d 392, 396 (1977).

The plaintiff also argued that the Genetic Information Privacy Act, viewed in its entirety, indicates that waiver of sovereign immunity was intended. But the court reiterated that the statute lacks explicit language allowing damages to be imposed against the state. Further, “[e]xpressly subjecting the State to the Act’s requirements does not mean the State expressly consented to damages,” as required for waiver, the court held.

The case is No. 23 CH 9190.

Judge: Moreland, C.

Attorneys: Rachel Minder (Siri & Glimstad LLP) for Heather Pierson. Kwame Raoul, Office of the Illinois Attorney General, for The Illinois State Police.

Companies: The Illinois State Police

Cases: Privacy CoverageLiability RemediesDamages StateLawClaims IllinoisNews