Sec. 8. (a) An employee of a political subdivision may
report in writing the existence of:
(1) a violation of a federal law or regulation;
(2) a violation of a state law or rule;
(3) a violation of an ordinance of a political subdivision; or
(4) the misuse of public resources;
first to a supervisor or appointing authority, unless the supervisor or
appointing authority is the person whom the employee believes is
committing the violation or misuse of public resources. In that case, the
employee may report the violation or misuse of public resources in
writing to either the supervisor or appointing authority or any official
or agency entitled to receive a report from the state ethics commission
under IC 4-2-6-4(b)(2)(G) or IC 4-2-6-4(b)(2)(H). If a good faith effort
is not made to correct the problem within a reasonable time, the
employee may submit a written report of the incident to any person,
agency, or organization.
(b) For having made a report under subsection (a), an employee may
not:
(1) be dismissed from employment;
(2) have salary increases or employment related benefits
withheld;
(3) be transferred or reassigned;
(4) be denied a promotion that the employee otherwise would
have received; or
(5) be demoted.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), an employee must
make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the correctness of any
information to be furnished and may be subject to disciplinary actions
for knowingly furnishing false information, including suspension or
dismissal, as determined by the employee's appointing authority or the
appointing authority's designee. However, any employee disciplined
under this subsection is entitled to process an appeal of the disciplinary
action under the procedure set forth in any personnel policy or
collective bargaining agreement adopted by the political subdivision.
(d) An employer who violates this section commits a Class A
infraction.
As added by P.L.32-1987, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.9-1990,
SEC.16.
Notes of Decisions
Kodrea v. City of Kokomo, Ind., 458 F. Supp. 2d 857 (S.D. Ind. 2006).
· cites it 10× “§ 1983 and Indiana Code § 36-1-8-8, a state “whistleblower” statute.”
City of Crown Point v. Lake Cnty., 510 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Thus, the question is whether the statute authorizing City planning and zoning is the kind of "express grant" required by Ind. Code § 36-1-8-8 (8) to sustain enforceability against another governmental unit.”
Hopkins v. Tipton Cnty. Health Dep't, 769 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Section 36-1-8-8(7) of the Home Rule Act prevents the County Board from regulating conduct that is regulated by the State Department of Health (a state agency).”
Ron Shoemaker v. Indiana State Police Dep't, 62 N.E.3d 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
“Code- § 36-1-8-8, applicable tb employees whose private employer is under public contract and employees of a political subdivision, respectively.”
Worman Enter., Inc. v. Boone Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 779 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “" I.C. § 36-1-8-8(7). Because the General Assembly granted solid waste management districts the power to promulgate regulations and to do all things necessary for the reduction, management, and disposal of solid waste within their borders, we find that the District has the power…”
Farley Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town of Speedway, 747 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “In addition, Indiana Code section 36-1-8-8(6) (the "Home Rule Statute") provides that a municipality does not have "[the power to impose a service charge or user fee greater than that reasonably related to reasonable and just rates and charges for services.”
Batistatos v. Lake Cnty. Convention & Visitors Bureau, No. 2:22-cv-00254 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 2, 2023).
· cites it 7× “The parties agree that there is no express right of action granted in Indiana Code § 36-1-8-8, which is the statute that Batistatos argues was violated.”
Town of Avon v. West Cent. Conservancy Dist., 937 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “The County argued that under Indiana Code section 36-1-8-8, Crown Point could not force it to be subject to its zoning regulations.”
Ind. Code § 36-1-8-8(6): 1 case
Farley Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town of Speedway, 747 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“In addition, Indiana Code section 36-1-8-8(6) (the "Home Rule Statute") provides that a municipality does not have "[the power to impose a service charge or user fee greater than that reasonably related to reasonable and just rates and charges for services.”
Ind. Code § 36-1-8-8(7): 2 cases
Hopkins v. Tipton Cnty. Health Dep't, 769 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
“Section 36-1-8-8(7) of the Home Rule Act prevents the County Board from regulating conduct that is regulated by the State Department of Health (a state agency).”
Worman Enter., Inc. v. Boone Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 779 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
“" I.C. § 36-1-8-8(7). Because the General Assembly granted solid waste management districts the power to promulgate regulations and to do all things necessary for the reduction, management, and disposal of solid waste within their borders, we find that the District has the power…”
Ind. Code § 36-1-8-8(8): 1 case
City of Crown Point v. Lake Cnty., 510 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 1987).
“Thus, the question is whether the statute authorizing City planning and zoning is the kind of "express grant" required by Ind. Code § 36-1-8-8 (8) to sustain enforceability against another governmental unit.”
Ind. Code § 36-1-8-8(a)(7): 1 case
Ind. Code § 36-1-8-8(a)(8): 1 case
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.