The Sonya Massey Law, a Deeper Dive: Common Questions and Practical Guidance

by Megan A. Lamb

Public Act 104-0158 (the “Act”), commonly known as the Sonya Massey Law, took effect on January 1, 2026, and significantly altered the requirements for background investigations in law enforcement hiring. As agencies across Illinois continue to implement the law, several questions have emerged regarding record production, waiver forms, and compliance obligations.

What Is the Sonya Massey Law?

The Law makes changes to the Illinois Police Training Act regarding how law enforcement agencies are to conduct background checks for law enforcement employment applicants. No final offer of employment may be made for a position as a full time or part time law enforcement officer without: (1) requiring the applicant to sign a release requiring all applicant’s previous employers and applicant’s current employer to produce copies of all employment records, and (2) receiving and reviewing said records.

The producing employer must certify that all records have been provided, and that no known records have been intentionally withheld. Employers may only redact the following personal information from responsive records: social security numbers, individual taxpayer numbers, driver’s license and state identification numbers, financial account numbers, and debit and credit card numbers.

An agency that requests records and does not receive them may seek a court order compelling the production of the requested records, and the court having jurisdiction over the matter may award fees and costs to the requesting agency, including attorney’s fees.

The Act further provides that any agency producing requested records is immune from liability related to any information that it discloses, “as long as the information is submitted, disclosed, or released in good faith and without malice.” 50 ILCS 705/6.5(j).

Must a Former Employer Provide Copies of Records?

Sometimes, former employers resist producing copies of their records and instead only offer to in-person inspections. Based on the language and purpose of the Act, however, the legislature intended for copies of records to be transmitted to the requesting agency.

The Act requires that a requesting agency “receive and review” all materials before making a final offer of employment. Receipt, in this context, strongly suggests possession of the records rather than a limited opportunity to view them. The statute also expressly contemplates redactions, which makes little sense if agencies were merely expected to inspect records on site. In addition, the Act allows up to 28 days for production of records, a timeframe that would be disproportionate if compliance required nothing more than permitting a site visit.

Practical considerations further support this interpretation. Requiring investigators to travel across the state—or out of state—to review a file would create logistical and financial burdens that seem inconsistent with the Act’s intent. Importantly, the Act provides broad immunity to producing employers for good-faith disclosures, reducing concerns about liability associated with transmitting copies of records.

For these reasons, it is advisable for agencies to draft applicant waiver forms that clearly require production and transmission of copies of records, rather than merely making records available for inspection. Including the name and address of the individual to whom records should be sent may help avoid confusion and delay.

Is Immunity Available for Agencies that Comply with the Act?

Yes, the Act provides broad immunity from civil liability for agencies and individuals that act in accordance with the Law. Specifically, the statute immunizes the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, all prior employers, and their agents and employees from suit or liability for submitting, disclosing, or releasing employment records pursuant to a written release executed in accordance with the Act, so long as the disclosure is made in good faith and without malice. This protection is intended to encourage full and timely compliance with record-production requests and to alleviate concerns that producing sensitive personnel records could expose agencies to legal claims. As a result, agencies that comply with the Act’s requirements—by producing complete records, making permitted redactions, and certifying that no known records were intentionally withheld—will not face liability arising from the act of disclosure itself.

May an Agency Hire an Applicant Without Receiving All Records?

The Act clearly states that the “requesting law enforcement agency shall receive and review all materials before making a final offer of employment.” 50 ILCS 705/6.5(f). The Act further provides that “if” an entity required to produce records in accordance with this Section fails to produce the requested records, the requesting law enforcement agency may seek a court order to compel the production of those records.

In addition to granting equitable relief, the circuit court may also award the requesting agency fees and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in seeking a court order. 50 ILCS 705/6.5(e). Thus, an agency should receive and review all records before hiring a police officer candidate.

That said, practical challenges may arise. Agencies may encounter non-cooperative former employers, prolonged litigation, or difficulty obtaining records from out-of-state or non-law-enforcement employers. These situations may significantly delay or even prevent hiring.

As a general matter, agencies should not hire law enforcement officers without obtaining and reviewing records from all prior law enforcement employers. Agencies should also exercise caution before hiring applicants without reviewing non-law-enforcement employment records, as doing so may expose the agency to negligent hiring claims. At the same time, municipalities must weigh the operational and legal risks of delaying hiring indefinitely due to circumstances beyond their control.

Agencies facing these issues should consult with legal counsel to assess the risks and determine whether proceeding without a complete employment history is defensible under the circumstances.

Must an Applicant’s Social Security Number Be Included on the Waiver?

The Act includes sample waiver language that calls for inclusion of the applicant’s Social Security number. While this requirement can assist in identifying employment records—particularly where applicants share common names or have changed names—there are legitimate concerns about transmitting full Social Security numbers between agencies.

A reasonable compromise is to require only the last four digits of the applicant’s Social Security number on the waiver form. This approach balances the need for accurate identification with security and privacy considerations.

Are Agencies Required to Interview Every Personal Reference?

The sample waiver language included in the Act also states that the applicant authorizes the employer to conduct a background check, which shall include a list of specific items, including a review of the complete employment history, a review of driving records, a background check with the Department of Children and Family Services, interviews with the applicant’s personal references, a verification of the applicant’s academic credential.

The inclusion of these items raises the question of whether all must be completed in every case. While there is some risk in omitting any component described in the waiver, that risk is not uniform. Failing to conduct certain checks—such as a Department of Children and Family Services inquiry—poses significantly greater exposure than failing to interview a particular personal reference. Agencies should strive to conduct thorough, well-documented background investigations and apply their procedures consistently, while recognizing that not all items carry the same level of legal risk.

Conclusion

As agencies continue to implement the Sonya Massey Law, careful attention to its requirements will be essential. The Law reflects the legislature’s intent to strengthen transparency and accountability in law enforcement hiring decisions. Agencies that develop clear policies, document compliance efforts, and apply their background investigation procedures consistently will be best positioned to meet these expectations. Early planning and informed decision-making can reduce uncertainty and promote lawful hiring practices under the new statutory framework. Therefore, agencies should ensure that their hiring practices align with both the letter and the intent of the statute.