A first-of-its-kind ruling clarifies what employers owe under Illinois's Gender Violence Act
An Illinois appeals court just made it easier to hold employers directly liable when they fail to act on workplace sexual violence complaints.
In a decision dated March 18, 2026, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District reversed a lower court's dismissal of Gender Violence Act claims brought by a former patient against Timberline Knolls Residential Treatment Center and its parent company, Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. The ruling is one of the first appellate interpretations of Section 11 of the Illinois Gender Violence Act, an employer liability provision that took effect on January 1, 2024, and it carries immediate implications for how employers handle training, supervision, and complaint response.
The case stems from allegations by a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe J.P., who was 18 years old when she voluntarily checked into Timberline Knolls' residential treatment facility in Lemont, Illinois, in February 2024. The facility, owned and controlled by Acadia Healthcare, treats women and adolescent girls dealing with eating disorders, addiction, depression, trauma, and other mental health conditions. Patients at the facility were not allowed to move freely and were required to be accompanied at all times by a behavioral health associate, or BHA – essentially the person responsible for monitoring and escorting them throughout the grounds.
One of those BHAs was Erick Hampton. According to the complaint, Hampton began following the plaintiff, staring at her, and making sexually explicit comments in February 2024. By March, while escorting her through the facility as part of his duties, he allegedly brought her to an isolated area of the Chestnut Lodge where he knew there were no surveillance cameras and sexually abused her. The plaintiff alleged she fought back, escaped, and reported what happened to Eliana Silva, the director of the lodge where she resided. Silva allegedly told her to keep her distance from Hampton but took no further action.
Then, on May 10, 2024, Hampton was again performing his duties as a BHA when he escorted the plaintiff. He allegedly took her to an isolated room in the Acorn Lounge and sexually assaulted her. She was subsequently hospitalized for suicidal ideation. After discharge, she was allegedly released into Hampton's custody. According to the complaint, he drove her to his home, held her hostage for approximately one week, and repeatedly assaulted and raped her. She eventually escaped and returned to the facility, where she remained until August 2024.
The complaint also alleged that between April 2020 and April 2024, eight other patients had filed police reports alleging sexual assault at the same facility, and one additional patient reported sexual abuse. The defendants allegedly took no remedial action in response to any of those reports.
The plaintiff sued under Section 11 of the Gender Violence Act, which was added to the statute effective January 1, 2024, and creates a framework for employer liability when gender-related violence is committed by an employee in the workplace. She alleged the defendants failed to implement policies to prevent sexual abuse, failed to train and supervise Hampton, failed to act on her complaint after the first attack, and failed to investigate the prior reports from other patients.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute used language drawn from the common law doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds that an employer is only liable for conduct committed within the scope of employment. Because sexual violence is never considered within the scope of employment under existing case law, the defendants argued they could not be held liable. The Cook County Circuit Court agreed and dismissed the claims with prejudice.
The appellate court saw it differently. Writing for the panel, Justice Rochford drew a distinction that the lower court missed: the statute requires the interaction that led to the violence to arise from the employee's job duties, not the violence itself. Hampton's job was to escort patients. He was doing exactly that when the alleged assaults occurred. That, the court held, was enough to meet the statute's threshold.
The court also rejected the argument that this interpretation amounts to strict liability. The statute still requires proof that the employer acted unreasonably – specifically, that it failed to train, supervise, or monitor the employee, or failed to investigate complaints and take remedial measures.
The court found the plaintiff's allegations met those requirements, pointing to the history of police reports at the facility and the failure to act after she reported the first assault to a facility director.
The case now returns to the Circuit Court of Cook County for further proceedings.
For HR professionals, the takeaway is straightforward. Under this ruling, the question is no longer whether a violent act was within the scope of an employee's job. The question is what the employer knew, what it did about it, and whether its response was reasonable. Training programs, supervisory protocols, complaint investigation procedures, and remedial action policies are now the front line of defense – and this case suggests that falling short on any of them can expose an organization to direct statutory liability.
