Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 6-2104 (2026)
Reporting of governmental waste or violation of law — Employer action.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Reporting of governmental waste or violation of law — Employer action.
(1) (a) An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because the employee, or a person authorized to act on behalf of the employee, communicates in good faith the existence of any waste of public funds, property or manpower, or a violation or suspected violation of a law, rule or regulation adopted under the law of this state, a political subdivision of this state or the United States. Such communication shall be made at a time and in a manner that gives the employer reasonable opportunity to correct the waste or violation.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, an employee communicates in good faith if there is a reasonable basis in fact for the communication. Good faith is lacking where the employee knew or reasonably ought to have known that the report is malicious, false or frivolous.
(2) (a) An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because an employee in good faith participates or communicates information in good faith in an investigation, hearing, court proceeding, legislative or other inquiry, or other form of administrative review concerning the existence of any waste of public funds, property, or manpower, or a violation or suspected violation of a law, rule, or regulation adopted under the law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, an employee participates or gives information in good faith if there is a reasonable basis in fact for the participation or the provision of the information. Good faith is lacking where the employee knew or reasonably ought to have known that the employee’s participation or the information provided by the employee is malicious, false or frivolous.
(3) An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because the employee has objected to or refused to carry out a directive that the employee reasonably believes violates a law or a rule or regulation adopted under the authority of the laws of this state, political subdivision of this state or the United States.
(4) An employer may not implement rules or policies that unreasonably restrict an employee’s ability to document the existence of any waste of public funds, property or manpower, or a violation or suspected violation of any laws, rules or regulations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Richard T. Wright v. Ada Cnty., 376 P.3d 58 (Idaho 2016).
Richard T. Wright v. Ada Cnty., 376 P.3d 58 (Idaho 2016). “I.C. § 6-2104. The term “adverse action” includes the discharge of a public employee.”
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-2104. Thus, as the newer statute with greater specificity and applicability, the Whistleblower Act and its statutory causes of action control in full.”
Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 224 P.3d 458 (Idaho 2008). “” Idaho Code § 6-2104 (1)(a) specifically provides: An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because the employee .”
Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009). “: (1)(a) An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because the employee, or a person authorized to act on behalf of the employee, communicates in good faith the existence of any waste of public funds, property or manpower, or a violation or suspected violation…”
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). “[10] Idaho Code § 6-2104 (1)(a) (Lexis 2004); Me.”
Mallonee v. State, 84 P.3d 551 (Idaho 2004). “§ 6-2101 is expanded by the varying language found in Sections 1(a) and (3) of I.C. § 6-2104, which addresses “law, rale or regulation adopted under the law of this state” and “law, rule or regulation adopted under the authority of the laws of this state,” respectively.”
Berrett v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 454 P.3d 555 (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-2104. Whether the employee communicated in good faith “is a question of fact, and summary judgment is appropriately only if, after viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the [non-moving party],” reasonable minds could only conclude that the communication was…”
Jeffry Black v. Idaho State Police, 314 P.3d 625 (Idaho 2013). “communicates in good faith the existence of .”
Summers v. City of McCall, 84 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (D. Idaho 2015). “3d at 988 (quoting Idaho Code § 6-2104 ). “Protected activities include: (1) opposing an unlawful employment practice; and (2) participating in a statutorily authorized proceeding.”
Cryer v. Idaho Dep't of Labor, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (D. Idaho 2018). “Protected Activity For purposes of the IPPEA, an employee engages in protected activity when he communicates in good faith the *1272 existence of any actual or suspected waste or violation; or refuses to carry out a directive that the employee reasonably believes would result in…”
Smith v. Mitton, 104 P.3d 367 (Idaho 2004). “Idaho Code § 6-2104 of the Idaho Protection of Public Employees (Whistleblower) Act states, “An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because the employee .”
Patterson v. State, Dep't of Health & Welfare, 256 P.3d 718 (Idaho 2011). “To establish an IPPEA claim, a plaintiff must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that the employee has suffered an adverse action because the employee, or a person acting on his behalf engaged or intended to engage in an activity protected *317 under section 6-2104,…”
— Idaho Code § 6-2104(1) — 2 cases
Richard T. Wright v. Ada Cnty., 376 P.3d 58 (Idaho 2016). “I.C. § 6-2104. The term “adverse action” includes the discharge of a public employee.”
Jeffry Black v. Idaho State Police, 314 P.3d 625 (Idaho 2013). “communicates in good faith the existence of .”
— Idaho Code § 6-2104(1)(a) — 5 cases
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-2104. Thus, as the newer statute with greater specificity and applicability, the Whistleblower Act and its statutory causes of action control in full.”
Cryer v. Idaho Dep't of Labor, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (D. Idaho 2018). “Protected Activity For purposes of the IPPEA, an employee engages in protected activity when he communicates in good faith the *1272 existence of any actual or suspected waste or violation; or refuses to carry out a directive that the employee reasonably believes would result in…”
Eller v. Idaho State Police (Idaho 2019).
Dickenson v. Benewah Cnty. (Idaho 2023).
Ohler v. Nampa Police Dep't (D. Idaho 2025).
— Idaho Code § 6-2104(1)(b) — 1 case
Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 224 P.3d 458 (Idaho 2008). “” Idaho Code § 6-2104 (1)(a) specifically provides: An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because the employee .”
— Idaho Code § 6-2104(2) — 3 cases
Richard T. Wright v. Ada Cnty., 376 P.3d 58 (Idaho 2016). “I.C. § 6-2104. The term “adverse action” includes the discharge of a public employee.”
Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 224 P.3d 458 (Idaho 2008). “” Idaho Code § 6-2104 (1)(a) specifically provides: An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because the employee .”
Strosnider v. City of Nampa, 196 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (D. Idaho 2016).
— Idaho Code § 6-2104(2)(a) — 2 cases
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-2104. Thus, as the newer statute with greater specificity and applicability, the Whistleblower Act and its statutory causes of action control in full.”
Eller v. Idaho State Police (Idaho 2019).
— Idaho Code § 6-2104(3) — 2 cases
Jeffry Black v. Idaho State Police, 314 P.3d 625 (Idaho 2013). “communicates in good faith the existence of .”
Cryer v. Idaho Dep't of Labor, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (D. Idaho 2018). “Protected Activity For purposes of the IPPEA, an employee engages in protected activity when he communicates in good faith the *1272 existence of any actual or suspected waste or violation; or refuses to carry out a directive that the employee reasonably believes would result in…”
— Idaho Code § 6-2104(4) — 1 case
Mallonee v. State, 84 P.3d 551 (Idaho 2004). “§ 6-2101 is expanded by the varying language found in Sections 1(a) and (3) of I.C. § 6-2104, which addresses “law, rale or regulation adopted under the law of this state” and “law, rule or regulation adopted under the authority of the laws of this state,” respectively.”
— Idaho Code § 6-2104(l)(a) — 3 cases
Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009). “: (1)(a) An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because the employee, or a person authorized to act on behalf of the employee, communicates in good faith the existence of any waste of public funds, property or manpower, or a violation or suspected violation…”
Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 224 P.3d 458 (Idaho 2008). “” Idaho Code § 6-2104 (1)(a) specifically provides: An employer may not take adverse action against an employee because the employee .”
Jeffry Black v. Idaho State Police, 314 P.3d 625 (Idaho 2013). “communicates in good faith the existence of .”
— Idaho Code § 6-2104(l)(b) — 1 case
Jeffry Black v. Idaho State Police, 314 P.3d 625 (Idaho 2013). “communicates in good faith the existence of .”
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.