{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:85f6be", "proof": "sha256:e0bd59162f15bfc6a692cf07a59fb45f17ec7661cb6bfb52e02133d0a222acec", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "2026 IL App (1st) 250383", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "No. 1-25-0383", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "Opinion filed August 28, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "Sixth Division", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "______________________________________________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "IN THE", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "FIRST DISTRICT", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "______________________________________________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "HEATHER PIERSON,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "THE ILLINOIS STATE POLICE,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Defendant-Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Appeal from the", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "Circuit Court of", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Cook County.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "No. 23 CH 9190", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "Honorable", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Caroline Kate Moreland,", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Judge, presiding.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "Justices Pucinski and Gamrath concurred in the judgment and opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "¶ 1 Heather Pierson, a former Illinois State Police dispatcher, alleges her employer violated", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "the Genetic Information Privacy Act (Act) (410 ILCS 513/1 et seq. (West 2024)) by requiring", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "her to disclose genetic information as a condition of employment. The trial court dismissed her", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "claim. The question on appeal is whether the Act waives the State’s sovereign immunity from", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "monetary damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "1-25-0383", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "- 2 -", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "¶ 2 Because the Act does not contain an express waiver of sovereign immunity for damages", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "against the State, we affirm.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "¶ 3 Background", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "¶ 4 The Illinois State Police (ISP) employed Heather Pierson as a dispatcher from June 2000", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "until May 2022. She alleges that, during annual meetings between 2018 and 2021, ISP required", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "her to disclose family medical history—including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes—on", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "workers’ compensation questionnaires. After leaving ISP, she filed this class action, alleging", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "those requests violated the Act and seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "¶ 5 ISP moved to dismiss under section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2-", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "619.1 (West 2024). Although acknowledging that the Act applies to state employees, ISP", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "argued that sovereign immunity barred Pierson’s claim for monetary damages because the Act", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "contains no express waiver for claims against the State. ISP also argued that Pierson lacked", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "standing to seek injunctive relief since she no longer worked there, and, without monetary or", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "injunctive relief, no actual controversy supported declaratory relief.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "¶ 6 Pierson responded that the Act expressly waives sovereign immunity by defining", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "“employer” to include the State. 410 ILCS 513/10 (West 2024). According to Pierson, that", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "definition becomes meaningless if the State is not an “offending party” subject to damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "¶ 7 Pierson also asserted that (i) she was an “aggrieved person,” entitled to seek recovery under", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "section 40 of the Act (id. § 40), and (ii) seeking monetary and injunctive relief presented an", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "“actual controversy.” The trial court dismissed the case. It held that although the Act applies", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "to State employers, its damages provision does not expressly waive sovereign immunity, as", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "“offending party” does not refer to the State. See id. Concerning Pierson’s claim for injunctive", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "1-25-0383", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "- 3 -", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "and declaratory relief, the trial court held that she lacked standing to seek an injunction, so no", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "“actual controversy” remained between Pierson and ISP.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "¶ 8 Analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "¶ 9 Standard of Review", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "¶ 10 In reviewing a dismissal under either sections 2-615 or 2-619 (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "(West 2024)), we construe the pleadings in Pierson’s favor and apply the de novo standard.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "See Board of Education of Park Forest-Chicago Heights School District No. 163 v. Houlihan,", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "382 Ill. App. 3d 604, 608 (2008). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "Norabuena v. Medtronic, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 162928, ¶ 14.", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "¶ 11 Pierson’s briefs raise one issue—the dismissal of the monetary damages claim. By not", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "challenging dismissal of the injunctive or declaratory claims, she has forfeited them. See Ill.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (“Points not argued are forfeited ***.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "¶ 12 The Act and Sovereign Immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "¶ 13 The Act limits “the use or disclosure of, and requests for, protected health information to", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "the minimum necessary to accomplish an intended purpose.” 410 ILCS 513/5 (West 2024).", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "The Act prohibits an employer (including the State) from soliciting, requesting, requiring, or", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "purchasing genetic testing or genetic information as a condition of employment, among other", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "protections. Id. § 25. A “person aggrieved by a violation of [the] Act shall have a right of action", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "in a State circuit court *** against an offending party.” Id. § 40.", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "¶ 14 The dispositive question is whether the Act expressly authorizes damages against the State.", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "Pierson argues that the Act waives the State’s sovereign immunity for damages by defining it", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "as an “employer” prohibited from requesting genetic information (id. § 10) and allowing suit", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "against an “offending party.” We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "1-25-0383", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "- 4 -", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "¶ 15 “The doctrine of sovereign immunity exists in Illinois pursuant to the Immunity Act, which", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "mandates that the State or a department of the State cannot be a defendant in an action brought", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "directly in the circuit court, except where the State has expressly consented to be sued.”", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "Watkins v. Office of the State Appellate Defender, 2012 IL App (1st) 111756, ¶ 21. That", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "consent needs to be “clear and unequivocal” (internal quotation marks omitted) (In re Special", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "Education of Walker, 131 Ill. 2d 300, 303 (1989)) and “expressed by specific legislative", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "authorization,” appearing in “affirmative statutory language.” Williams v. Davenport, 306 Ill.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "App. 3d 465, 469 (1999); see Lynch v. Department of Transportation, 2012 IL App (4th)", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "111040, ¶ 30 (sovereign immunity must be “clearly, unequivocally, or affirmatively” waived).", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "¶ 16 Pierson relies on Department of Revenue v. Appellate Court, 67 Ill. 2d 392 (1977),", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "contending, “Statutes that ‘in express terms refer to the State’ manifest a consent to be sued", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "and are adequate to authorize monetary relief against the State.” That quoted language she", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "attributes to the decision does not appear in it. More importantly, Department of Revenue", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "supports the opposite conclusion.", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "¶ 17 In Department of Revenue, our supreme court reversed an order requiring a State agency", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "to pay court costs. Id. at 398. The court held that general language imposing costs did not waive", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity; consent “must appear in affirmative statutory language.” Id. at 396. And", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "neither the statute nor a supreme court rule expressly referenced the State. Id. at 398.", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "¶ 18 Although sections 10 and 25 refer to the State, section 40 on damages speaks only in", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "general terms to an “offending party.” 410 ILCS 513/40 (West 2024). That general language", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "does not satisfy Department of Revenue’s express authorization of damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "¶ 19 Pierson further contends that reading the Act as a whole shows the legislature’s intent to", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "waive sovereign immunity, relying on Grey v. Hasbrouck, 2015 IL App (1st) 130267. Grey", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "1-25-0383", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "- 5 -", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "does not help Pierson. In Grey, the court held that sovereign immunity did not bar damages", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "because the statute expressly authorized suit “against the offending unit of government.”", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶¶ 15, 20-21. The Act does not contain comparable", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "explicit language allowing damages against the State.", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "¶ 20 In addition, Pierson’s argument conflates two distinct concepts. Expressly subjecting the", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "State to the Act’s requirements does not mean the State expressly consented to damages. In", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "other words, regulating the State as an employer does not authorize a damages action against", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "it. Had the legislature intended to waive sovereign immunity, it knew how to say so. Illinois", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "State Treasurer v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2015 IL 117418, ¶ 35.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "¶ 21 Affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "1-25-0383", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "- 6 -", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Pierson v. Illinois State Police, 2026 IL App (1st) 250383", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 23-CH-", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "09190; the Hon. Caroline Kate Moreland, Judge, presiding.", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "Attorneys", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "for", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "Appellant:", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "Rachel Minder, of Siri & Glimstad LLP, of New York, New", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "York, for appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Attorneys", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "for", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "Appellee:", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz,", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "Solicitor General, and Valerie Quinn, Assistant Attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "General, of counsel), for appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_141" } ], "word_count": 1271, "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "53a79e7dc54f608c9373b7e8276b06f21177db0381c435c98ec7fdd0928fb0ac", "source_url": "https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/05682dd7-6b12-48ee-981f-b625c5204ca2/file", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T07:16:45.622+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "53a79e7dc54f608c9373b7e8276b06f21177db0381c435c98ec7fdd0928fb0ac", "recomputed_sha256": "53a79e7dc54f608c9373b7e8276b06f21177db0381c435c98ec7fdd0928fb0ac", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-10T04:11:51.429Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:e0bd59162f15bfc6a692cf07a59fb45f17ec7661cb6bfb52e02133d0a222acec", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "expires": "2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-09+legal-2026-10-09+2026-10-09T21:48:48", "content_hash": "sha256:e0bd59162f15bfc6a692cf07a59fb45f17ec7661cb6bfb52e02133d0a222acec", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-10T05:11:52.255Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-1-25-0383-2026-08-28" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }