When gender-based violence occurs at work, the natural first response for most employers is to rely on a human resources team, and that makes sense. HR is trained to receive complaints, gather witness statements, apply policies, and coordinate responses. After all, a well-run investigation can be vital for identifying what happened and preventing future similar events.
In Illinois, however, investigating is necessary but not sufficient. In concert with federal protections under Title VII, Illinois law focuses on results and risk reduction, not simply on the existence of an investigative process. The state has adopted several legal frameworks that shape employer obligations and impose heightened exposure when workplace gender violence occurs.
The Illinois Gender Violence Act (IGVA)
One of the most common employer mistakes is assuming that “gender violence” is simply a more dramatic way of describing sexual harassment. The Illinois Gender Violence Act (“IGVA”) rejects that framing outright.
While the IGVA recognizes gender-related violence as a form of sex-based harassment, it also encompasses additional misconduct and creates an independent civil cause of action. The IGVA’s definition is not limited to harassment under a quid pro quo or hostile work environment theory, which is what largely governs the application of Title VII and the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”) to workplace sexual harassment. Rather, the IGVA reaches conduct involving force or threats that are motivated by gender, and even applies to intimidation and coercion. The umbrella of potential claims is much broader under the IGVA than under traditional employment discrimination statutes.
Further, the IGVA broadens legal exposure for individuals. Title VII does not allow claims against individuals, although the IHRA does under certain conditions. The IGVA, however, allows claims against individuals in even greater circumstances than the IHRA, and also permits claims against entities that enable or tolerate misconduct, depending on the situation. This is true regardless of whether the bad behavior is caused by a supervisor, coworker, or customer.
These particularities matter for employers because the IGVA is not primarily concerned with whether a policy was or was not followed. It is concerned with whether gender-motivated violence or even intimidation occurred and whether it was allowed to continue. An HR investigation that concludes “we couldn’t substantiate a policy violation” is not always sufficient under the IGVA if the underlying risk remained, if it escalated, or if management simply ignored it.
The Victims Economic Safety and Security Act (VESSA)
If the IGVA establishes that gender violence is a serious civil liability, VESSA outlines what employers must do when that violence intersects with work.
VESSA is routinely misunderstood as a protected leave statute. It is not. At its core, VESSA is a safety and anti-retaliation law and, as of recent amendments, has expanded beyond the realm of gender-based violence to all crimes of violence. VESSA prohibits employers from discharging, harassing, discriminating against, or retaliating against an employee because the employee is a victim of violence, including gender-based violence.
Crucially, VESSA also requires employers to consider reasonable accommodations related to safety. Those accommodations are not abstract. They include changes to work schedules, job structure, work location, communication methods, or physical security measures—precisely the kinds of interventions that reduce risk while an investigation is ongoing. In fact, VESSA requires that an employer inform an employee of VESSA’s protections after learning that the employee may require such protections.
In other words, Illinois law does not expect employers to sit on their hands while HR gathers statements. It expects them to act to reduce danger.
Where Employers Go Wrong
In practice, many employers over-rely on HR investigations. They wait for findings before making operational changes. That approach is especially risky in Illinois.
Under the IGVA, tolerating gender-motivated threats or coercion can itself form the basis of liability. Under VESSA, failing to reasonably accommodate safety needs (as long as the requested accommodation does not present an undue burden to the business) or punishing an employee for having safety needs, can be unlawful even if the employer disputes the underlying allegations. Some examples of reasonable accommodations under VESSA include adjustments to the job structure, workplace facility, work requirements, telephone number, seating assignment, or physical security of the work area. Furthermore, employers are not allowed to request voluminous documents supporting the underlying allegations. See 820 ILCS 180/20)(c)(2).
The most damaging fact pattern seen in litigation is one in which the employer documents the complaint thoroughly but leaves the employee exposed: to the same schedule, to the same supervisor, or to an offending coworker. From a litigation perspective, that record often becomes evidence of employer inaction and liability.
What Should Employers Do?
HR should conduct prompt, thorough, and professional investigations into gender violence claims in the workplace. But at the same time, decision-makers should be asking a different set of questions, driven by IGVA and VESSA:
- Is there a credible risk of continued harm or retaliation pending the investigation, and if so, how can we mitigate it?
- Are there reasonable safety accommodations that can be implemented now, even while the investigation is ongoing?
- Does maintaining the status quo increase exposure under the IGVA and/or VESSA?
- Are any apparently “neutral” policies likely to punish the reporting employee or violate VESSA by requiring that the employee provide more information than VESSA allows an employer to request?
- What steps reduce risk without sidelining the person who raised the concern?
These questions go directly to statutory compliance in a state that treats gender violence as incompatible with safe employment.
What Does Risk Mitigation Look Like?
In Illinois, risk mitigation means going beyond good policy-writing. That includes acting early after receiving an employee complaint, offering safety-related accommodations without forcing the employee to beg for them, ensuring that interim measures do not disadvantage the person reporting gender-based violence, and documenting not just what was investigated, but what was done to prevent further harm.
Illinois law assumes that gender-based violence at work is serious, foreseeable, and destabilizing. HR investigations are part of that response, but in a state with strict rules and broad protections, investigation without intervention is not enough. Employers that stop there often discover—only too late—that Illinois law was compelling them to act earlier and more decisively.