Genevieve M. LeFevour

Genevieve M. LeFevour: Attorney with Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
  • Shareholder at Johnson & Bell, Ltd. (103 Attorneys)
  • 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60603-5404
    View Genevieve M. LeFevour's office location
  • Peer Reviews

    No Reviews
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
    • #898 in weekly profile views out of 43,786 Attorneys in Chicago, IL
    • #50,538 in weekly profile views out of 1,823,423 total attorneys Overall


Genevieve M. LeFevour focuses her practice in medical malpractice, employment, general negligence, premises liability and transportation. She also defends security consultants and loss prevention companies as well as cases involving the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) and Welfare & Pension Fund Contribution Deficiency. She has represented and worked with one of Chicago's premier security firms since early in her legal career, and now co-chairs the Johnson & Bell Private Security group.

Ms. LeFevour's employment experience includes handling local, state, federal and administrative filings involving employment matters and employment litigation. She also advises clients on compensation practices and FLSA compliance, record retention and mandatory reporting, as well as on separation agreements, policy and procedure review, and related issues. On labor matters, Ms. LeFevour has handled arbitration hearings and addressed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) charges, grievances, union avoidance and union organizing. She recently defended a hospital client facing four unfair labor practice charges. The NLRB ruled in favor of her client in three of the cases and the fourth case was withdrawn.

On litigated matters, Ms. LeFevour oversees all aspects of cases up through and including trial. She has tried both bench and jury trials in Cook County and a jury trial in Lake County resulting in a defense verdict for her clients. Recently, Ms. LeFevour secured dismissal of charges filed against her client for age and race discrimination. The charges were part of an Illinois Department of Human Rights investigation, but the agency found a lack of substantial evidence to support the complainant's case.

In 2015, Ms. LeFevour was selected one of the 40 Attorneys Under 40 to watch in Illinois by the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. She is a native Chicagoan and is proud to come from a large Chicago family. Ms. LeFevour attended Loyola Academy for high school where she was a record holding member of the varsity swim team. She was also designated Future Leader of Chicago by the Chicago Community Trust in 1998. In 2011, Ms. LeFevour was chosen by the President of Loyola High School to be a member of the Inaugural Young Board of the school known as the President's Leadership Council. She is currently a member of the American Ireland Fund's Young Leaders. The Young Leader's Society provides a number of unique forums for young professionals from around the world to join together to share ideas and further the philanthropic work of the Ireland Funds. Ms. LeFevour is also a member of the Chicago Healthcare Risk Management Society and the Loyola Academy Bar Association.

Presentations & Publications


• Title VII Top on the List for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2013, Johnson & Bell Employment Newsletter, Winter 2013
• Supreme Court Further Erodes Federal Preemption Doctrine, Johnson & Bell Product Liability Law Alert, Spring 2011
•Co-Author, Motor Carriers' Exposure to Claims Made by Co-Drivers/Passengers and Independent Contractors Pursuant to the “Statutory Employee” Doctrine
Construction Negligence Cases in Illinois, A Look at Sections 414 & 343 of the Testatement (2d) of Torts


•Co-Presenter, Medical Studies Act & Attorney Client Privilege

Community Involvement

•American Ireland Fund, board membe

Areas of Practice (4)

  • Employment
  • General Negligence
  • Health Care
  • Private Security

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
(312) 984-0228  Phone
University Attended:
University of Notre Dame, B.A., cum laude, 2003
Law School Attended:
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, J.D., 2006
Year of First Admission:
2006, Illinois


•Chicagoland Healthcare Risk Management Society

•President's Leadership Council

Birth Information:
Chicago, Illinois, April 30, 1981
Reported Cases:
Representative Cases: Received a jury verdict in favor of a hospital client in a contentious employment dispute. In this case, plaintiff filed an eight-count employment discrimination lawsuit against the hospital alleging that it failed to hire her for a position because of her age (58) and because she was a woman (the person hired for the position was a 26-year-old male with nearly 20 years less experience). Plaintiff also claimed that her hours were reduced because of her age and gender; that she received negative evaluations because of her age and gender; and that the hospital gave her negative reviews and reduced her hours in retaliation for a letter sent to the hospital by her lawyer complaining of age and sex discrimination. After five days of trial, the jury deliberated for less than an hour before returning a verdict for the defense.; Successfully defended a hospital client in a labor arbitration proceeding alleging wrongful discharge. The grievant, a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, maintained he had been wrongfully discharged and that even if there were grounds for discipline, the hospital should have imposed sanctions less severe than discharge. The hospital maintained the grievant was correctly discharged because he loudly and aggressively abused his supervisor, used profane language and aggressive and belligerent behavior, flatly refused to do assigned work and was caught on video sitting in his office doing nothing while he was supposed to be doing his job of installing light fixtures.; Secured a dismissal of charges filed against their client for age and race discrimination. In both charges, the Illinois Department of Human Rights found a lack of substantial evidence to support the complainant's case. In this matter, the complainant, who was 40 years old, alleged that he was fired from his job because of age and race discrimination. He further claimed that his discharge from the company was in retaliation to his filing the discrimination charges. However, the company asserted that the complainant was discharged because he falsified documents about when he clocked in at the company. Moreover, the company documented that the complainant was falsifying his clocked in time over a period of several weeks and resorted to having another employee clock in for him in his absence. The investigator found a lack of substantial evidence to support the employee's charges noting that the employee was terminated for failing to comply with company policies.; Obtained summary judgment in favor of a private security company in a complex, and hotly contested, breach of contract insurance dispute. By securing summary judgment in this breach of contract case, Johnson & Bell effectively saved its client 1.3 million. The breach of contract allegation arose with regard to the underlying case in which one individual was shot to death and a second individual was rendered a paraplegic in a grocery store's parking lot. Johnson & Bell's client was dismissed from the underlying case, having successfully argued that its contract was to only provide security services to protect the store property, not customers in the parking lot from criminal acts of third parties. Ultimately, the remaining parties settled the case for 3.9 million, with 1.3 million of that settlement being paid by the grocery store. Following the settlement, the grocery store sought reimbursement from Johnson & Bell's client of the 1.3 million it paid for the settlement. The grocery store filed a breach of contract case against Johnson & Bell's client, alleging that the private security company breached its contractual duties by not procuring insurance with a 2 million per occurrence limit. Johnson & Bell argued that the grocery store was not damaged by the alleged failure to procure 2 million in insurance coverage because the insurer which insured the private security company had not paid anything from its policy covering the security company to settle the case, so the fact that its limits were less than the agreed upon amount had no impact on the amount paid by the grocery store. The court agreed with Johnson & Bell's argument and granted summary judgment, dismissing all of the grocery store's arguments to the contrary.; Addressed a range of business issues confronting one of the largest private security companies in Illinois - from reviewing security contracts for upcoming events, crafting employment policies and service animal policies to handling employment discrimination matters, event security liability, parking garage security liability, complex insurance coverage matters and other disputes.; Negotiated a favorable defense settlement for a security company in a collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The three named plaintiffs claimed they were denied overtime pay for mandatory training, waiting for replacement security officers to take their posts and donning and doffing of uniforms. The Circuit Court of Cook County recently approved the settlement which limited the number of overtime hours to substantially less than claimed by the named plaintiffs as well as reducing the time period involved in order to limit the number of potential claimants. Notice to potential claimants is now proceeding.

Peer Reviews

This lawyer does not have peer reviews.

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Chicago, Illinois

Contact Genevieve M. LeFevour

Required Fields

Required Fields

By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.