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

Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-605 (2020)

Remedies

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A court in rendering judgment under this subchapter may order any or all of the following remedies:
    1. An injunction to restrain continued violation of the provisions of this subchapter;
    2. The reinstatement of the public employee to the same position held before the adverse action or to an equivalent position;
    3. The reinstatement of full fringe benefits and retirement service credit;
    4. The compensation for lost wages, benefits, and any other remuneration; or
    5. The payment by the public employer of reasonable court costs and attorney's fees.
    1. A public employee alleging in a civil action that he or she was terminated from his or her position as the result of adverse action prohibited under § 21-1-603 may request an expedited hearing on the issue of the public employee's being reinstated to the public employee's position until the resolution of the civil action brought under this subchapter.
    2. If at an expedited hearing the public employee demonstrates that a reasonable person would conclude that his or her termination was a result of adverse action prohibited under § 21-1-603, the court shall order that the public employee be:
      1. Reinstated to his or her position until the conclusion of the civil action brought under this subchapter; or
      2. Reinstated to his or her position and placed on paid administrative leave until the conclusion of the civil action brought under this subchapter.

History. Acts 1999, No. 1523, § 5; 2017, No. 791, § 1.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment added (b); designated the existing language as (a); and added “or” at the end of (a)(4).

Research References

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).

Applicability.

Employee who prevailed on appeal of a postjudgment order related to judgments entered pursuant to the Whistle-Blower Act, subdivision (5) of this section, was denied attorneys' fees under the act because the judgment on appeal was not rendered under this act, but rather was decided based primarily on federal and state income tax law. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Storey, 372 Ark. 175, 271 S.W.3d 500 (2008).

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).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Smith v. Daniel, 2014 Ark. 519, 452 S.W.3d 575.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Daniel, 2014 Ark. 519, 452 S.W.3d 575. · cites it 4× “” Also, Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-605 (Repl. 2004), 1 The majority is correct that the whistle-blower claims in Crosby were disposed of on Eleventh Amendment grounds.”
Ark. Cmty. Corr. v. Barnes, 542 S.W.3d 841 (Ark. 2018). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-605 (Repl. 2016). The General Assembly clearly intended to subject the State to liability under the AWBA.”
Crawford Cnty. v. Jones, 232 S.W.3d 433 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-605 (Repl. 1999). In sum, the evidence supporting Jones’s claim under the Whistle-Blower Act created a question of fact to be resolved by a jury; thus, it was error for the trial court to grant the County’s motion for directed verdict.”
Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Storey, 271 S.W.3d 500 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 12× “Specifically, she argues that, as the prevailing party on this appeal, she is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-605 (5) (Repl. 2004), and Ark.”
Harris, No. 4:24-cv-00641 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 6, 2026). · cites it 2× “30, 2007) (no punitive damages against individual in his official capacity because such a claim is a claim against the city); Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-605 (no provision for punitive damages).”
Wilson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 553. · cites it 2× “The court found that the State had satisfied the 2 Cite as 2017 Ark.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-605(5): 2 cases
Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Storey, 271 S.W.3d 500 (Ark. 2008). “Specifically, she argues that, as the prevailing party on this appeal, she is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-605 (5) (Repl. 2004), and Ark.”
Wilson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 553. “The court found that the State had satisfied the 2 Cite as 2017 Ark.”
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.