social security numbers gathered in the course of the Secretary’s official duties; this disclosure prohibition does not apply to the IDOL. Thus, in Sawyer terms, these Claimants are not “members of the class for whose benefit the Act was enacted” or of the “particular class” sought to be protected by section 2 — 123(h). Claiman 3, 395 N.E.2d 541, 32 Ill. Dec. 311 (rejecting implied private action under the 1957 Retail Installment Sales Act); Teale v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1976), 66 Ill. 2d 1, 359 N.E.2d 473, 3 Ill. Dec. 834 (rejecting implied private action under the age discrimination act and Missouri statute). 2 This fifth factor was arguably stated in one pre-Sawyer opinion: In Sherman v. Field Clinic (1st Dist. 1979), 74 Ill. App. 3d 21, 392 N.E.2d 154, 161, 29 Ill. Dec. 597, 604 (<HOLDING>), the court observed that the allegations
recognizing implied private action under the plat act rejecting implied private action under the national flood insurance act of 1968 recognizing implied private action under the xray retention act recognizing implied private action under the school code as to chapter 1 funds recognizing implied private action under the collection agency act recognizing implied private action under federal safety appliance act