The ordinance's prohibition will not apply for internal transfers or promotions with a current employer, when applicant's voluntarily disclosure of salary history, when compensation is determined pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, and for employees rehired within five years of termination if the employer already possesses salary information from the applicant's prior employment. The ordinance takes effect on October 31, 2019.

The law includes some exceptions for when it will not apply, including when the position involves the physical safety of others such as firefighter, emergency medical technician, motor vehicle operator, when a collective bargaining agreement is involved, and when the associated position is funded by a federal grant.

The law continues to allow employers to prohibit the use of marijuana in the workplace and to allow employers to discipline/terminate employees who violate employment or workplace drug policies. However, the law also amends the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act by defining "lawful products" to mean products that are legal under state law. As a result, under the Right to Privacy Act, Illinois employers are prohibited from discriminating against applicants and employees who use lawful products (i.e., marijuana) off the premises of the employer during nonworking and non-call hours.

The law includes some exceptions. Employers regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation's drug and alcohol testing regulations are exempt from the provisions of the act. Likewise, employers are not bound by the act if it interferes with the employer's ability to comply with federal or state laws or could result in the loss of federal or state funding.

The bill also requires that a school district or charter school offering employment to a former employee must contact the department of elementary and secondary education to determine which school district or charter school previously employed the teacher, and shall require the district or charter school to disclose any violations of the published regulations of the board of education made by the employee related to sexual misconduct with a student and which was found to be valid by conducting a hearing pursuant to board policy.

Plaintiff filed a class action against the firm alleging that it violated the FCRA. The parties decided to bifurcate the case limiting the first phase to discovery on the threshold issues of whether the firm is a CRA and whether the reports are "consumer reports" as defined by the FCRA. Defendant filed for summary judgment on these issues. The district court reached the conclusion that since the defendant took reasonable steps to insure that the report is not used for an FCRA-regulated purpose through words and actions, it does not qualify as a CRA under the FCRA.

Plaintiff then appealed the decision to the Second Circuit. The appeals court upheld the decision stating that the entity must intend to furnish a "consumer report" to qualify as a "consumer reporting agency" and because defendant took numerous measures to prevent its reports from being utilized as "consumer reports," no reasonably juror would conclude that defendant intended to furnish such reports as "consumer reports" under the FCRA.