Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-602 (2026)
Definitions
As used in this subchapter:
- “Adverse action” means to discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against a public employee in any manner that affects the employee's employment, including compensation, job location, rights, immunities, promotions, or privileges;
-
-
“Appropriate authority” means:
- A state, county, or municipal government department, agency, or organization having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement, regulatory violations, professional conduct or ethics, or waste; or
- A member, officer, agent, investigator, auditor, representative, or supervisory employee of the body, agency, or organization.
- “Appropriate authority” includes, but is not limited to, the office of the Attorney General, the office of the Auditor of State, the Arkansas Ethics Commission, the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee and Arkansas Legislative Audit, and the offices of the various prosecuting attorneys having the power and duty to investigate criminal law enforcement, regulatory violations, professional conduct or ethics, or waste;
-
“Appropriate authority” means:
- “Communicate” means to give a verbal or written report to an appropriate authority;
-
- “Public employee” means a person who performs a full or part-time service for wages, salary, or other remuneration for a public employer.
- “Public employee” includes without limitation a state employee under § 21-1-610;
-
“Public employer” means any of the following:
- An agency, department, board, commission, division, office, bureau, council, authority, or other instrumentality of the State of Arkansas, including the offices of the various Arkansas elected constitutional officers and the General Assembly and its agencies, bureaus, and divisions;
- A state-supported college, university, technical college, community college, or other institution of higher education or department, division, or agency of a state institution of higher education;
- The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the circuit courts, and prosecuting attorneys' offices;
- An office, department, commission, council, agency, board, bureau, committee, corporation, or other instrumentality of a county government or a municipality or a district court, a county subordinate service district, a municipally owned utility, or a regional or joint governing body of one (1) or more counties or municipalities; or
- A public school district, school, or an office or department of a public school district in Arkansas;
- “Violation” means an infraction or a breach which is not of a merely technical or minimal nature of a state statute or rule, of a political subdivision ordinance or regulation, or of a code of conduct or code of ethics designed to protect the interest of the public or a public employer;
- “Waste” means a public employer's conduct or omissions which result in substantial abuse, misuse, destruction, or loss of public funds, property, or manpower belonging to or derived from the state or local political subdivision's resources; and
- “Whistle-blower” means a person who witnesses or has evidence of a waste or violation while employed with a public employer and who communicates in good faith or testifies to the waste or violation, verbally or in writing, to one of the employee's superiors, to an agent of the public employer, or to an appropriate authority, provided that the communication is made prior to any adverse action by the employer.
History. Acts 1999, No. 1523, § 2; 2005, No. 2190, § 21; 2013, No. 211, § 1; 2019, No. 315, § 2316.
Amendments. The 2005 amendment deleted “county board of education or a” in (5)(E) and made minor stylistic changes.
The 2013 amendment rewrote (4).
The 2019 amendment substituted “rule” for “regulation” in (6).
Case Notes
Affirmative Defense.
Because the circuit court previously ruled that the employee violated multiple rules and policies, it was clear that his termination was the result of that misconduct and not related to any communication between the employee and the city administrator; that previous ruling did, in fact, establish the city's affirmative defense to the whistle-blower claim. Barrows v. City of Fort Smith, 2010 Ark. 73, 360 S.W.3d 117 (2010).
Jury Trial.
There were no undisputed facts that warranted proceeding to a jury trial; the circuit court determined as a matter of law that the city had an affirmative defense to the employee's whistle-blower claim in that his termination was the result of his violating departmental rules and policies. As the circuit court reasoned, the employee should not be allowed to force the city to prove that misconduct yet again. Barrows v. City of Fort Smith, 2010 Ark. 73, 360 S.W.3d 117 (2010).
Public Employee.
There was sufficient evidence that the employee was a public employee, because the employee was a person, and it was undisputed that he performed part-time services in exchange for wages from the Arkansas Department of Career Education, a public employer. State v. Means, 2013 Ark. 173, 426 S.W.3d 922 (2013).
In the nurse's action under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, the trial court did not err by denying the motion for summary judgment of the Administrator of the Arkansas State Hospital and its employee based on sovereign immunity because the suit against the Administrator in his official capacity was in effect a suit against a public employer for which sovereign immunity was waived by this section. Smith v. Daniel, 2014 Ark. 519, 452 S.W.3d 575 (2014).
Public Employer.
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).
Law professor's Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act (AWBA) individual-capacity claims against state university officials were properly dismissed because the AWBA does not provide for suits against individuals. Steinbuch v. Univ. of Ark., 2019 Ark. 356, 589 S.W.3d 350 (2019).
Reporting.
Because terminated county employee's actions of reporting alleged misdeeds to quorum court members, sitting as a grievance committee, was reporting to the “appropriate authorities,” under subdivision (2)(A)(ii) of this section, evidence supporting terminated employee's claim under the Whistle-Blower Act created a question of fact and, thus, it was error for the trial court to have granted the county's motion for a directed verdict. Crawford County v. Jones, 365 Ark. 585, 232 S.W.3d 433 (2006).
Whistle-Blower.
Bullying and harassment do not amount to either a waste of public funds or a violation of the law for purposes of the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act. Bales v. City of Fort Smith, 2016 Ark. App. 491 (2016) (substituted op. on reh'g).
Cited: Hollis v. Fayetteville Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2015 Ark. App. 544, 473 S.W.3d 45 (2015).