Christopher J. Jump

Chris’ practice focuses on representing and advocating for business entities, units of government, and not-for-profit organizations.

Chris regularly practices in both state and federal courts, as well as in administrative proceedings, litigating a wide variety of issues from employment and labor related matters, contested estates and trusts, to business and shareholder disputes, contract disputes, collections, and appeals. His experience ranges from small claims representation to complex, multi-state litigation and class action defense. Chris is licensed to practice in the State Courts of Illinois and the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

In addition to litigation and alternative dispute resolution, Chris advises his clients on day-to-day matters, employment and labor issues, personnel policies, and organizational matters. He also maintains a regular transactional practice, advising clients on significant business transactions and real estate transactions, as well as estate planning.

Chris is also an experienced municipal and government attorney, assisting various units of government through general operational and governance issues, property transactions, collective bargaining and labor/employment issues, FOIA and Open Meeting Act issues, annexation, condemnation, prosecution of ordinance violations, and litigation. He currently serves as the appointed City Attorney for the City of Canton. He also has served as a Special Assistant Attorney General to the Illinois Attorney General, representing the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

Prior to joining the firm in November, 2019, Chris worked at the law firm of Barnhart, Tinsman & Associates, Ltd. where he practiced in areas such as family law, personal injury, juvenile law, estate planning and probate, criminal law, and general civil litigation. He also served as Guardian Ad Litem in child custody, adoption, guardianship, personal injury, and other matters affecting minors or disabled individuals.

Chris resides in Canton with his wife, Ashley. He is heavily involved in the community, serving on the boards of numerous organizations.

Education

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (B.S. Finance, Accountancy, with a minor in Political Science)
St. Louis University School of Law (J.D., with a concentration in Civil Litigation)
- Moot Court Board
- Editor-in-Chief, St. Louis University Public Law Review (2013-2014)

Contact Christopher J. Jump

cjjump@dcamplaw.com

Download vCard

Office Locations

Peoria, IL

401 Main Street, Suite 1600
Peoria, IL 61602

Phone: (309) 673-1681
Fax: (309) 673-1690

Christopher J. Jump Practice Areas

Christopher J. Jump In the News

State Legislative and Employment Law Update

David Lubben will be presenting at the Illinois SHRM Employment Law Conference on State Legislative and Employment Law Update on March 30, 2022.

Work Authorization Win for Derivative Beneficiaries – Shergill Settlement to Change H-4 and L-2 EAD Requirements

Depending on class of admission, certain noncitizens may be authorized to work in the United States, pursuant to nonimmigrant visa status. Spouses of L-1A and H-1B visa holders are considered “derivative beneficiaries” and their status runs concurrently to the status of the primary beneficiary spouse. By statute, L-2 spouses are authorized for employment incident to status, thus they are not required to apply for an employment authorization document (“EAD”) prior to accepting employment in the U.S. However, previously, the instructions for Form I-765 (the application for employment authorization documents) indicated L-2 spouses must apply for an EAD, pay the $410 filing fee to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and wait for receipt of an EAD prior to accepting employment. This process was taking up to 14.5 months, depending on the service center processing the application. Unlike the L-2, H-4 spouses are required to apply for employment authorization and an EAD prior to accepting employment in the U.S., pursuant to applicable regulations.

Filed I-765 applications commonly face extreme processing delays as individual H-4 and L-2 visa holders wait for their applications to be adjudicated, resulting in gaps in work authorization and employment, creating severe consequences for not only the visa holders, but the employers who either risk employing individuals without proper work authorization and documentation or losing the workers.

In September 2021, a class action lawsuit Shergill v. Mayorkas was initiated on behalf of plaintiffs with H-4 or L-2 status lasting longer than their initial work authorization, and each individual being required to file for an EAD extension prior to the expiration of their initial work authorization (and without seeking an additional extension of their H-4 or L-2 status). On November 10, 2021, the parties Shergill v. Mayorkas reached a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the executed settlement, L-2 visa holders are now authorized to work incident to status, and they will not be required to file for an EAD; they will instead be issued new I-94 documents which document their L-2 visa status and can be used for Form I-9 verification process. It is expected these documents will be issued within 120 days. Additionally, individuals with valid H-4 status who timely file EAD renewal applications and continue to maintain H-4 status beyond the expiration of their EAD qualify for the automatic extension of their employment authorization and EAD. This automatic extension also applies to L-2 visa holders with current employment authorization and EAD documentation.

This outcome will substantially decrease the burden of EAD renewals on USCIS – which will allow USCIS offices and their staff to devote resources to other severely backlogged petitions. Davis & Campbell will continue to monitor the situation and will provide further updates upon release of further USCIS guidance regarding H-4 and L-2 derivative beneficiaries. If you have any questions regarding H-4 and L-2 visas, please contact David Lubben or Carli Smith.

NLRB Clarifies Bargaining Obligations Under OSHA’s ETS

On November 5, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) to protect workers from COVID-19. The ETS covers employers with 100 or more employees and requires covered employers to develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy unless the employer adopts a policy requiring employees to choose either to be vaccinated or undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work.

When it comes to bargaining obligations that may arise under this ETS, the General Counsel for the NLRB weighed in on November 10, 2021, with a new Operations Memorandum. View Memorandum.

The NLRB’s position is that covered employers will have decisional bargaining obligations regarding aspects of the ETS that affect terms and conditions of employment to the extent the ETS provides employers with choices regarding implementation. While an employer is relieved of its duty to bargain where a specific change in terms and conditions of employment is statutorily mandated, the employer may not act unilaterally so long as it has some discretion in implementing those requirements.

The ETS affects terms and conditions of employment including the potential to affect the continued employment of those who become subject to it. To the extent elements of the ETS do not give covered employers discretion, the employer is nonetheless obligated to bargain about the effects of the decision. Whether a covered employer may implement a mandatory policy prior to a valid impasse or agreement when bargaining over effects will depend on the facts of the situation.

Moving forward on implementation of the ETS at union facilities may require an employer to analyze its collective bargaining agreement and notify the union of its implementation of the new OSHA requirement.

Illinois Legislative Changes

SB1480 Amends Human Rights Act, Equal Pay Act and Business Corporation Act

Signed into law on March 23, 2021

Amendment of Human Rights Act

Creates new employment offense, discrimination on the basis of criminal conviction, 775 ILCS § 5/2-103.1
Criminal conviction includes felony, misdemeanor or other criminal offense, including sentences of imprisonment, fine, probation, and/or parole and including sentences imposed by military authorities 775 ILCS § 5/1-103(G-5)
Unless otherwise authorized by law, employers may not make any employment decisions (hiring, promotion, compensation, rehiring, training, discharge, discipline, tenure, or terms and conditions of employment) based on criminal convictions, unless:
- “there is a substantial relationship between one or more of the criminal offenses and the employment sought or held” OR
- “the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public”
- “Unreasonable risk” is not defined – but the employer has to prove it
- “Substantial relationship” means that the job creates an opportunity for the same or similar offense to occur, and whether the circumstances for which the person was convicted are likely to happen again
In determining whether there is a substantial relationship between the offense and the job, the following six factors have to be considered by the employer:
1. the length of time since the conviction
2. the number of convictions on the record
3. the nature and severity of the conviction and its relationship to safety and security of others
4. the facts and circumstances involved
5. the age of the employee at the time of the conviction
6. evidence of rehabilitation efforts
If the employer preliminarily decides to take a negative employment action, it must provide written notice to the employee, which must contain:
1. The specific conviction on which the action is based
2. A copy of the conviction history report if any
3. An explanation of the employee’s right to challenge the decision before it becomes final, including challenging the conviction record and providing rehabilitation information, which may be submitted within at least 5 business days
The employer must consider any information offered by the employee
If the employer decides to make the decision final, it must provide written notice to the employee, which must contain:
1. The specific conviction on which the action is based
2. The employer’s reasoning
3. Any available internal appeals, and
4. The employee’s right to file a charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights
These changes go into effect immediately as of March 23, 2021

Amendment of Business Corporation Act

If the employer must file an EEO-1 report with the EEOC (100 or more employees, or 50 more employees and federal contractor), the employer must file the same employment data with the Illinois Secretary of State with the annual report 805 ILCS § 5/14.05(m)
The Secretary of State will publish the employment data on its website
These new reporting requirements begin with the first annual report filed after January 1, 2023

Amendment of Equal Pay Act of 2003

Employers with more than 100 employees must obtain an “equal pay registration certificate” and certify compliance with federal and state discrimination and equal pay laws 820 ILCS § 112/11
This requirement applies to private employers, not to governmental agencies
To obtain the certificate, the employer must provide EEO-1 data to the Illinois Department of Labor for each county in which the business has a facility or employees, and a list of all employees during the past calendar year separated by gender, race and ethnicity, plus total wages paid to each employee during the prior calendar year
Wages are defined the same as in Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and include wages, salaries, earned commissions, and other forms of compensation
Employers must also submit to the IDOL a statement signed by a corporate officer, legal counsel, or other authorized agent of the business that includes the following:
1. That the business is in compliance with Title VII, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Illinois Human Rights Act, Equal Wage Act, and Equal Pay Act of 2003
2. That the average compensation for female and minority employees is not consistently below the average compensation, as determined by IDOL rules, for male and non-minority employees within each of the major job categories in the EEO-1 report for which an employee is expected to perform work under the contract, taking into account factors such as length of service, requirements of specific jobs, experience, skill, effort, responsibility, working conditions of the job and other mitigating factors
3. That the employer does not restrict employees of one sex to certain job classification and makes retention and promotion decisions without regard to sex
4. That the business corrects wage and benefit disparities when identified
5. How often the business evaluates wages and benefits to ensure compliance with these statutes.
6. The statement must also indicate whether the business uses a market pricing approach, or State prevailing wage or union contract requirements, or a performance pay system, or an internal analysis, or an alternative approach (which must be explained) to determine what compensation and benefits to provide to employees.
The issuance of an equal pay certificate by IDOL is not a defense to an Equal Pay Act violation nor is it a basis to mitigate damages to an aggrieved employee
Employers who do not obtain a certificate or whose certificate is suspended or revoked after IDOL investigation are subject to a mandatory civil penalty equal to 1% of gross profits
IDOL will conduct audits of businesses to ensure compliance with these new requirements
IDOL may revoke certificates that it has issued if it determines that the business has failed to make good faith efforts to comply with these Acts or has multiple violations; the employer will have a right to an administrative hearing regarding the revocation
Existing corporations must obtain certificates within three years, by March 23, 2024
New corporations must obtain certificates within three years after commencing operations
Recertification will be required every two years
Businesses are prohibited from retaliating against employees for disclosing information to company supervisors or to public bodies believed violations of this law, for providing information to public bodies at investigations, inquiries or hearing, and/or participating in enforcement proceedings, and the employee’s remedies include reinstatement, two times the amount of backpay, interest, and attorney’s fees

Amendment to Illinois’ Marijuana Law and Its Affect on Employers

Governor Pritzker has signed an amendment to Illinois’ Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (the new recreational marijuana law), and – in so doing – has effectively expanded employers’ rights to drug test and discipline for marijuana use.

First, public employers may now prohibit/discipline officers, paramedics, and firefighters from/for using and possessing marijuana when they are off-duty. The previous language merely prohibited on-duty use and possession. Second, the amendment provides that all employers (both public and private) may subject employees to random drug testing and may also subject applicants to pre-employment testing for marijuana, in addition to testing employees based on an employers’ “good faith belief” of impairment (i.e., post accident, reasonable suspicion, etc.). Employers may then discipline/terminate/not hire an employee or applicant for failing any such test.

In sum, employers do not need to observe impairment prior to testing (or subsequently disciplining) for marijuana use. However, remember that all drug tests and discipline following failed drug tests must continue to be administered via employers’ reasonable and non-discriminatory drug policies. Thus, in addition to having a drug policy in place, employers should regularly review those policies to ensure the content remains reasonable.

Nicole D. Meyer | Davis & Campbell, L.L.C.
401 Main Street, Suite 1600 | Peoria, IL 61602
(309) 673-1681 | Fax: (309) 673-1690

This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure – IRS regulations require us to notify you that this communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that might be imposed on you by the IRS, or for promoting, marketing or recommending tax-related matters to another party.

Print Bio View All Attorneys