Bartlow v. Costigan, 2014 IL 115152

Illinois Employee Classification Act (ECA) targets misclassification of construction-industry workers as independent contractors and deeming them employees unless exemptions apply.
Plaintiffs Bartlow, Towle, and Modglin, partners/workers for Jack's Roofing, faced Department investigations for alleged misclassification in 2008–2009.
Department issued preliminary determinations and potential penalties, prompting plaintiffs to seek declaratory and injunctive relief in circuit court.
Pre-amendment enforcement provisions allowed investigations without formal hearings; plaintiffs argued the Act violated due process, equal protection, and other constitutional guarantees.
Amendments effective Jan 1, 2014 added formal hearings, notice, and Administrative Review Act procedures, and reduced penalties; mootness potential arose for procedural due process claims.
Appellate and circuit courts upheld most pre-amendment provisions; Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to address facial challenges and mootness under amended law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Act's facial challenges are merited	Bartlow contends the Act is vague and constitutionally defective.	Costigan argues the Act is constitutional and exemptions are clear.	Not all facial challenges succeed; section 10 is not impermissibly vague.
Whether pre-amendment enforcement violated procedural due process	Due process requires hearings before enforcement actions under the Act.	Pre-amendment process provided adequate, albeit informal, procedures; no final judgments yet.	Mooted by amendments; cannot be decided on merits.
Whether section 10 exemptions are unconstitutionally vague	Exemptions for independent contractors/sole proprietors are unclear, causing arbitrary enforcement.	Exemptions are detailed and objective, guiding compliance.	Section 10 is not impermissibly vague.
Whether other constitutional challenges (special legislation, equal protection) were preserved	Claims of special legislation and equal protection viability were argued.	Arguments were not fully briefed; merits not reached.	Claims forfeited; not addressed on the merits.
Whether amended Act should apply and mootness of challenges	Amendments should not apply retroactively to this case; some challenges remain live.	Amendments apply to any ongoing enforcement; challenges moot.	Amendments apply; procedural due process claim moot.

Davis v. Brown, 221 Ill.2d 435 (Ill. 2006) (facial challenge burden; invalid otherwise)
Lazenby v. Mark’s Construction, Inc., 236 Ill.2d 83 (Ill. 2010) (de novo review; statutory construction standards)
Pooh-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook, 232 Ill.2d 463 (Ill. 2009) (vagueness and enforcement standards; due process)
Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (civil penalties; less strict vagueness standard)
Johnson v. Edgar, 176 Ill.2d 499 (Ill. 1997) (mootness when statute amended during appeal)
People v. Taylor, 138 Ill.2d 204 (Ill. 1990) (facial challenge framework; standard of review)