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.
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)
Christopher J. Jump In the News
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:
- the length of time since the conviction
- the number of convictions on the record
- the nature and severity of the conviction and its relationship to safety and security of others
- the facts and circumstances involved
- the age of the employee at the time of the conviction
- 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:
- The specific conviction on which the action is based
- A copy of the conviction history report if any
- 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:
- The specific conviction on which the action is based
- The employer’s reasoning
- Any available internal appeals, and
- 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:
- 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
- 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
- That the employer does not restrict employees of one sex to certain job classification and makes retention and promotion decisions without regard to sex
- That the business corrects wage and benefit disparities when identified
- How often the business evaluates wages and benefits to ensure compliance with these statutes.
- 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
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.
On February 11, 2020, Attorneys Rick Russo and Nicole Meyer will present on the amendment to the Illinois marijuana bill and its effect on employers, medical marijuana/reasonable accommodations, and how the legalization of marijuana may affect workers compensation matters for the Peoria Chamber of Commerce at the Hult Center for Healthy Living.
On February 11, 2020, Attorney David Lubben will present on Illinois Statutory Law Changes at the monthly meeting of the Decatur Area SHRM.
On February 19, 2020, Attorney Nicole Meyer will present “Policies on Marijuana, Drug Testing, and Reasonable Accommodations.” Topics covered will include: What options are available to employers for use of marijuana? What are the risks associated with different drug testing programs? Do employers have to accommodate the use of medical marijuana as a reasonable accommodation?