Ark. Code Ann. » Title 21 Chapter 01
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-601 (2026)

Title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act”.

History. Acts 1999, No. 1523, § 1.

Research References

ALR.

What Constitutes Activity of Private-Sector Employee Protected under State Whistleblower Protection Statute Covering Employee's “Report,” “Disclosure,” “Notification,” or the Like of Wrongdoing — Nature of Activity Reported. 36 A.L.R.6th 203.

What Constitutes Activity of Public or State Employee Protected under State Whistleblower Protection Statute Covering Employee's “Report,” “Disclosure,” “Notification,” or the Like of Wrongdoing — Nature of Activity Reported. 37 A.L.R.6th 137.

Construction and Application of Whistleblower Provision of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1). 15 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 315.

Ark. L. Rev.

Robert C. Dalby, Comment: Too Plain to Be Misunderstood: Sovereign Immunity Under the Arkansas Constitution, 71 Ark. L. Rev. 761 (2019).

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Per the holding in Board of Trustees v. Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12, to the extent the legislature subjected the State to liability in the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, § 21-1-601 et seq., it is prohibited by Ark. Const., Art. 5, § 20, and the circuit court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on sovereign immunity. The General Assembly’s choice to abrogate sovereign immunity in the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act is prohibited by the Arkansas Constitution. Ark. Cmty. Corr. v. Barnes, 2018 Ark. 122, 542 S.W.3d 841 (2018).

No Violation Shown.

Police chief did not show a mayor violated the Arkansas Whistleblower Protection Act, § 21-1-601 et seq., by terminating the chief after the chief reported to the city attorney that the mayor ordered the chief to arrest an individual for a zoning violation because, even if the chief asserted a violation of a clearly established right, the chief did not show the mayor would have known the mayor violated such a right, as (1) the zoning violation provided a criminal penalty, and (2) the chief admitted knowing the individual violated the ordinance. Sullivan v. Coney, 2013 Ark. 222, 427 S.W.3d 682 (2013).

Sovereign Immunity.

Because former employee's claims for injunctive relief were unquestionably legal claims against the State of Arkansas, sovereign immunity barred his claims under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, § 21-1-601 et seq., and the state and federal constitutions against the state officials in their official capacities; and plaintiff's conclusory statements and bare allegations were insufficient to establish an illegal, unconstitutional, or ultra vires act such that sovereign immunity would not apply. Harris v. Hutchinson, 2020 Ark. 3, 591 S.W.3d 778 (2020).

Arkansas Governor did not waive sovereign immunity by signing the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act because the governor does not enact legislation. Harris v. Hutchinson, 2020 Ark. 3, 591 S.W.3d 778 (2020).

Supreme Court of Arkansas declined to overturn Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12. Harris v. Hutchinson, 2020 Ark. 3, 591 S.W.3d 778 (2020).

Where former state employee alleged that he was terminated because he refused to violate the state policy to hire the most qualified individual for a position, and asserted claims under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, § 21-1-601 et seq., and the federal and state constitutions, the circuit court erred when it found that sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's claims against the state officials in their individual capacities; in their individual capacities, the state officials did not enjoy the immunity granted to the State under Ark. Const., Art. 5, § 20. Harris v. Hutchinson, 2020 Ark. 3, 591 S.W.3d 778 (2020).

Cited: Crawford County v. Jones, 365 Ark. 585, 232 S.W.3d 433 (2006); City of Farmington v. Smith, 366 Ark. 473, 237 S.W.3d 1 (2006); Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Storey, 372 Ark. 23, 269 S.W.3d 803 (2007).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Ark. Cmty. Corr. v. Barnes, 542 S.W.3d 841 (Ark. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ark. Cmty. Corr. v. Barnes, 542 S.W.3d 841 (Ark. 2018). · cites it 4× “Thereafter, ACC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Ark.”
Johnson v. Butler, 2016 Ark. 253 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 4× “WYNNE, Associate Justice Appellee Eugene Butler filed suit against appellees Calvin Johnson, in his official capacity,1 and the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas (collectively, the University or appellants), alleging violation of the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act…”
Crawford Cnty. v. Jones, 232 S.W.3d 433 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2× “Jones cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the County’s motion for directed verdict on her claims for violation of the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 21-1-601 — 609 (Repl. 1999 & Supp.”
City of Farmington v. Smith, 237 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2× “2003); the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 21-1-601 — 609 (Repl. 2004); violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution; as well as several state-law claims.”
Gordon v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Arkansas, 168 F. Supp. 3d 1148 (E.D. Ark. 2016). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-601 , et seq. . Gordon initially reported the illegal waste of funds to Norwood, who took no action.”
Arkansas State Med. Bd. v. Byers, 2017 Ark. 213 (Ark. 2017). “Code Ann, §§ 21-1-601 to -610 (Repl. 2016). Those claims are not relevant to this appeal.”
Sullivan v. Coney, 427 S.W.3d 682 (Ark. 2013). · cites it 2× “She also alleged that Sullivan violated the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, Ark.Code Ann. § 21-1-601 et seq. With respect to the due-process claim, Sullivan responds that Coney was an at-will employee and that she therefore had no properly interest in her position as Chief of…”
Barrows v. City of Fort Smith, 360 S.W.3d 117 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 2× “Prior to the Commission entering its written order, Barrows filed an action in federal district court alleging that he was terminated without cause, and that such termination violated his constitutional rights to due process and to petition the government for redress, as well as…”
State, Dep't of Career Educ., Div. of Rehab. Servs. v. Means, 426 S.W.3d 922 (Ark. 2013). · cites it 2× “Section 21-1-603 provides in relevant part that (a)(1) A public employer shall not take adverse action against a public employee because the public employee ... communicates in good faith to an appropriate authority: (A) The existence of waste of public funds .”
Robert Steinbuch v. Univ. of Arkansas, 2019 Ark. 356 (Ark. 2019). “§§ 21-1-601 et seq. (Repl. 2016 & Supp. 2017), for retaliatory actions against Steinbuch as a result of his original complaint.”
Christopher H. Harris v. Asa Hutchinson, Individually & in His Off. Capacity as Governor of the State of Arkansas; & Patrick Fisk, Individually & in His Off. Capacity, 2020 Ark. 3 (Ark. 2020). “Bringing claims pursuant to the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act (AWBA), Arkansas Code Annotated sections 21-1-601 et seq. (Repl. 2016 & Supp.”
Bales v. City of Fort Smith, 2016 Ark. App. 491 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. §§ 21-1-601 et seq. (Repl.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.