Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 6-2105 (2026)
Remedies for employee bringing action — Proof required.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Remedies for employee bringing action — Proof required.
(1) As used in this section, "damages" means damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of this chapter, and includes court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
(2) An employee who alleges a violation of this chapter may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief or actual damages, or both, within one hundred eighty (180) days after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this chapter.
(3) An action begun under this section may be brought in the district court for the county where the alleged violation occurred, the county where the complainant resides, or the county where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has his principal place of business.
(4) To prevail in an action brought under the authority of this section, the employee shall 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 under section 6-2104, Idaho Code.
(5) (a) In no action brought pursuant to this chapter shall a judgment for noneconomic damages be entered for a claimant exceeding the limitation on damages contained in section 6-1603(1), Idaho Code.
(b) The limitation contained in this subsection shall apply to the sum of noneconomic damages sustained by a claimant.
(c) Governmental entities and their employees shall not be liable for punitive damages on any claim allowed under the provisions of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019).
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). “Section 6-2106 is an independent and expanded list of remedies a court may order when violations of the Act are found to exist, but it is not a restriction on a claimant's ability to seek and receive redress for non-economic damages as part of "actual damages." The list under…”
Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009). “Idaho Code section 6-2105(2) provides a limitations period of 180 days from the occurrence of the alleged violation.”
Richard T. Wright v. Ada Cnty., 376 P.3d 58 (Idaho 2016). “Idaho Code section 6-2105 then specifically defines “damages” as “damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of this chapter_” I.”
Berrett v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 454 P.3d 555 (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-2105(4). It is undisputed that, as defined by the act, Ryan Berrett is an “employee,” the School District is an “employer,” and that his termination constitutes an “adverse action.”
Patterson v. State, Dep't of Health & Welfare, 256 P.3d 718 (Idaho 2011). “” I.C. § 6-2105(2). Where the alleged adverse action is a constructive discharge, a plaintiff must prove that “working conditions bec[a]me so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign[.”
Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 224 P.3d 458 (Idaho 2008). “An employee’s cause of action under the whistleblower act is defined in I.C. § 6-2105(4): To prevail in an action brought under the authority of this section, the employee shall establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee has suffered an adverse action…”
D.A.F. v. Lieteau & Juv. Corr. Nampa, 456 P.3d 193 (Idaho 2019). “We then set forth the reasoning as to why a governmental employee’s whistleblower claim under section 6-2105 was not subject to the notice requirements of the ITCA: We hold that a whistleblower claim is an action based on a specific statute and therefore it is unnecessary to…”
Summers v. City of McCall, 84 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (D. Idaho 2015). “3d at 724 -25 (quoting Idaho Code § 6-2105 (4)). “Under Idaho’s Whistleblower Act, a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge requires [the employee] to show: (1) he was an employee who engaged or intended to engage in protected activity; (2) his employer took adverse action…”
Brown v. City of Caldwell, 769 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (D. Idaho 2011). “” Idaho Code § 6-2105 (2). When considering the meaning of a statute, the focus of the Court is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature.”
Sharon R. Hammer v. City of Sun Valley, 414 P.3d 1178 (Idaho 2016). “" I.C. § 6-2105(3) (emphasis added). However, if the legislature had intended to create individual supervisor liability, it would have done so more explicitly.”
Eller v. Idaho State Police (Idaho 2019). “Section 6-2106 is an 10 independent and expanded list of remedies a court may order when violations of the Act are found to exist, but it is not a restriction on a claimant’s ability to seek and receive redress for non-economic damages as part of “actual damages.”
Smith v. Glenns Ferry Hwy Dist (Idaho 2020). “As to the issue of whether the Idaho Whistleblower Act allowed an award of front pay, the trial court ruled that front pay could be awarded, construing Idaho Code sections 6-2105 and 6-2106 broadly. However, the trial court reserved ruling on whether Smith could present evidence…”
— Idaho Code § 6-2105(1) — 4 cases
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). “Section 6-2106 is an independent and expanded list of remedies a court may order when violations of the Act are found to exist, but it is not a restriction on a claimant's ability to seek and receive redress for non-economic damages as part of "actual damages." The list under…”
Richard T. Wright v. Ada Cnty., 376 P.3d 58 (Idaho 2016). “Idaho Code section 6-2105 then specifically defines “damages” as “damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of this chapter_” I.”
Smith v. Glenns Ferry Hwy Dist (Idaho 2020). “As to the issue of whether the Idaho Whistleblower Act allowed an award of front pay, the trial court ruled that front pay could be awarded, construing Idaho Code sections 6-2105 and 6-2106 broadly. However, the trial court reserved ruling on whether Smith could present evidence…”
Eller v. Idaho State Police (Idaho 2019). “Section 6-2106 is an 10 independent and expanded list of remedies a court may order when violations of the Act are found to exist, but it is not a restriction on a claimant’s ability to seek and receive redress for non-economic damages as part of “actual damages.”
— Idaho Code § 6-2105(2) — 7 cases
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). “Section 6-2106 is an independent and expanded list of remedies a court may order when violations of the Act are found to exist, but it is not a restriction on a claimant's ability to seek and receive redress for non-economic damages as part of "actual damages." The list under…”
Patterson v. State, Dep't of Health & Welfare, 256 P.3d 718 (Idaho 2011). “” I.C. § 6-2105(2). Where the alleged adverse action is a constructive discharge, a plaintiff must prove that “working conditions bec[a]me so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign[.”
Richard T. Wright v. Ada Cnty., 376 P.3d 58 (Idaho 2016). “Idaho Code section 6-2105 then specifically defines “damages” as “damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of this chapter_” I.”
Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009). “Idaho Code section 6-2105(2) provides a limitations period of 180 days from the occurrence of the alleged violation.”
Brown v. City of Caldwell, 769 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (D. Idaho 2011). “” Idaho Code § 6-2105 (2). When considering the meaning of a statute, the focus of the Court is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature.”
— Idaho Code § 6-2105(3) — 1 case
Sharon R. Hammer v. City of Sun Valley, 414 P.3d 1178 (Idaho 2016). “" I.C. § 6-2105(3) (emphasis added). However, if the legislature had intended to create individual supervisor liability, it would have done so more explicitly.”
— Idaho Code § 6-2105(4) — 8 cases
Berrett v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 454 P.3d 555 (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-2105(4). It is undisputed that, as defined by the act, Ryan Berrett is an “employee,” the School District is an “employer,” and that his termination constitutes an “adverse action.”
Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009). “Idaho Code section 6-2105(2) provides a limitations period of 180 days from the occurrence of the alleged violation.”
Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 224 P.3d 458 (Idaho 2008). “An employee’s cause of action under the whistleblower act is defined in I.C. § 6-2105(4): To prevail in an action brought under the authority of this section, the employee shall establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee has suffered an adverse action…”
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). “Section 6-2106 is an independent and expanded list of remedies a court may order when violations of the Act are found to exist, but it is not a restriction on a claimant's ability to seek and receive redress for non-economic damages as part of "actual damages." The list under…”
Patterson v. State, Dep't of Health & Welfare, 256 P.3d 718 (Idaho 2011). “” I.C. § 6-2105(2). Where the alleged adverse action is a constructive discharge, a plaintiff must prove that “working conditions bec[a]me so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign[.”
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.