Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 6-2106 (2026)
Court orders for violation of chapter.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Court orders for violation of chapter.
A court, in rendering a judgment brought under this chapter, may order any or all of the following:
(1) An injunction to restrain continued violation of the provisions of this act;
(2) The reinstatement of the employee to the same position held before the adverse action, or to an equivalent position;
(3) The reinstatement of full fringe benefits and seniority rights;
(4) The compensation for lost wages, benefits and other remuneration;
(5) The payment by the employer of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees;
(6) An assessment of a civil fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), which shall be submitted to the state treasurer for deposit in the general fund.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019).
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-2106. As noted, under the rules of statutory interpretation, we must first look to the statute's plain language, using the literal words as the best guide to determining legislative intent.”
Richard T. Wright v. Ada Cnty., 376 P.3d 58 (Idaho 2016). “I.C. § 6-2106. There is no limiting language that would indicate a plaintiff is precluded from bringing an independent cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress even though the alleged conduct would also constitute a violation of the Whistleblower Act.”
Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009). “See I.C. §§ 6-2106 & 2107. Under the Act a court is authorized to “order any or all of the following”: (1) An injunction to restrain continued violation of the provisions of [the] act; (2) The reinstatement of the employee to the same position held before the adverse action, or…”
Smith v. Mitton, 104 P.3d 367 (Idaho 2004). “§ 6-2106 states that a court “may” order “payment by the employer of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees” in rendering a judgment under the Whistleblower Statute.”
Jeffry Black v. Idaho State Police, 314 P.3d 625 (Idaho 2013). “Black requests his attorney fees on appeal, stating: The Whistleblower Act provides that a court may order ‘payment by the employer of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees’ to the discharged employee.”
Sharon R. Hammer v. City of Sun Valley, 414 P.3d 1178 (Idaho 2016). “' " The relief available to an employee under the IPPEA is set forth in Idaho Code section 6-2106, which provides: A court, in rendering a judgment brought under this chapter, may order any or all of the following: (1) An injunction to restrain continued violation of the…”
Smith v. Glenns Ferry Hwy Dist (Idaho 2020). “See I.C. § 6-2106. This resulted in the trial court imposing a significant reduction of the front pay award from $187,500 to $44,622.”
Eller v. Idaho State Police (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-2106. As noted, under the rules of statutory interpretation, we must first look to the statute’s plain language, using the literal words as the best guide to determining legislative intent.”
Dickenson v. Benewah Cnty. (Idaho 2023). “Dickenson’s complaint alleged a violation of the Idaho Protection of Public Employees Act (Whistleblower Act) and sought reinstatement to his position or an equivalent position, as well as civil fines under Idaho Code section 6-2106(6), attorney fees and costs, and other…”
Ohler v. Nampa Police Dep't (D. Idaho 2025). “20) (Nampa Defendants noting how remedies for violation of the IPPEA include “reinstatement of the employee to the same position,” the “reinstatement of full fringe benefits and seniority rights,” and the “compensation for lost wages, benefits and other remuneration”) (citing…”
— Idaho Code § 6-2106(2) — 1 case
Smith v. Glenns Ferry Hwy Dist (Idaho 2020). “See I.C. § 6-2106. This resulted in the trial court imposing a significant reduction of the front pay award from $187,500 to $44,622.”
— Idaho Code § 6-2106(4) — 1 case
Smith v. Glenns Ferry Hwy Dist (Idaho 2020). “See I.C. § 6-2106. This resulted in the trial court imposing a significant reduction of the front pay award from $187,500 to $44,622.”
— Idaho Code § 6-2106(5) — 6 cases
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-2106. As noted, under the rules of statutory interpretation, we must first look to the statute's plain language, using the literal words as the best guide to determining legislative intent.”
Richard T. Wright v. Ada Cnty., 376 P.3d 58 (Idaho 2016). “I.C. § 6-2106. There is no limiting language that would indicate a plaintiff is precluded from bringing an independent cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress even though the alleged conduct would also constitute a violation of the Whistleblower Act.”
Jeffry Black v. Idaho State Police, 314 P.3d 625 (Idaho 2013). “Black requests his attorney fees on appeal, stating: The Whistleblower Act provides that a court may order ‘payment by the employer of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees’ to the discharged employee.”
Sharon R. Hammer v. City of Sun Valley, 414 P.3d 1178 (Idaho 2016). “' " The relief available to an employee under the IPPEA is set forth in Idaho Code section 6-2106, which provides: A court, in rendering a judgment brought under this chapter, may order any or all of the following: (1) An injunction to restrain continued violation of the…”
Smith v. Glenns Ferry Hwy Dist (Idaho 2020). “See I.C. § 6-2106. This resulted in the trial court imposing a significant reduction of the front pay award from $187,500 to $44,622.”
— Idaho Code § 6-2106(6) — 1 case
Dickenson v. Benewah Cnty. (Idaho 2023). “Dickenson’s complaint alleged a violation of the Idaho Protection of Public Employees Act (Whistleblower Act) and sought reinstatement to his position or an equivalent position, as well as civil fines under Idaho Code section 6-2106(6), attorney fees and costs, and other…”
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.