Sec. 4. (a) Any employee 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 (as
defined in IC 36-1-2-13); or
(4) the misuse of public resources;
to a supervisor or to the inspector general.
(b) For having made a report under subsection (a), the employee
making the report 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 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, the
appointing authority's designee, or the ethics commission. However,
any state employee disciplined under this subsection is entitled to
process an appeal of the disciplinary action under the procedure as set
forth in IC 4-15-2.2-42.
(d) An employer who violates this section is subject to criminal
prosecution under IC 35-44.2-1-1.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.36, SEC.2. Amended by
P.L.17-1984, SEC.1; P.L.32-1987, SEC.1; P.L.5-1988, SEC.25;
P.L.9-1990, SEC.11; P.L.222-2005, SEC.21; P.L.6-2012, SEC.13;
P.L.126-2012, SEC.12.
Notes of Decisions
Ron Shoemaker v. Indiana State Police Dep't, 62 N.E.3d 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 11× “Pursuant to Ind.Code § 4-15-10-4, the Whis-tleblower Law (the WBL), Shoemaker initiated an administrative appeal of his demotion.”
Wholey v. Roebuck, 803 A.2d 482 (Md. 2002).
“)(whistleblowing by state employees); Idaho Code § 6-2101 (1997)(whistleblowing by public employees protected); Ind.Code § 4-15-10-4 (1996)(public employees protected); Iowa Code § 19A.”
Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “We will address the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies under the WBL and Ogden’s common law claim, but we will not address the issue of whether the WBL creates a private right of action, as we determine that Ogden improperly failed to exhaust his administrative…”
Esserman v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 66 N.E.3d 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
“[12]Second, IDEM asserts that the word “employer” in Section 8, while not defined in the Indiana Code, must be interpreted to mean only private employers because some other statutes scattered throughout the Indiana Code suggest Es-serman might have other remedies against a…”
Timothy J. Brown v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “Specifically, Brown alleged that he was terminated for being a whistleblower in violation of Indiana Code section 4-15-10-4, Indiana’s State Employee Whistleblower Law (“WBL”)2 for emailing his supervisor and inadvertently revealing “what could be viewed as federal grant fraud[.”
Suzanne E. Esserman v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “3 A qui tam action is “[a]n action brought under a statute that allows a private person to sue for a penalty, part of which the government or some specified public institution will receive.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1444 (10th ed.”
Suzanne E. Esserman v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Whether or not there was in fact a violation of the law is not relevant for determining if the whistleblower statute, Ind. Code § 4-15-10-4 , applies. That statute only requires that an employee make “a reasonable attempt to ascertain the correctness of any information.”
Timothy J. Brown v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. (Ind. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Timothy Brown appealed his termination from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to the State Employees’ Appeals Commission (SEAC), claiming that he was a protected whistleblower under Indiana Code section 4-15-10-4. Initially, SEAC dismissed Brown’s…”
Paul K. Ogden v. Stephen Robertson (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The Whistleblower Law The WBL is codified at I.C. § 4-15-10-4 and provides that: (a) Any employee 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…”
Daniels v. Hutson, 489 N.E.2d 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).
“Hutson from the position of Director of the Jay County Department of Public Welfare was an illegal reprisal prohibited by Indiana Code 4-15-10-4. 7. That the temporary injunction heretofore granted on May 15, 1984 should be made permanent.”
— Ind. Code § 4-15-10-4(a)(4) — 1 case
Timothy J. Brown v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
“Specifically, Brown alleged that he was terminated for being a whistleblower in violation of Indiana Code section 4-15-10-4, Indiana’s State Employee Whistleblower Law (“WBL”)2 for emailing his supervisor and inadvertently revealing “what could be viewed as federal grant fraud[.”
— Ind. Code § 4-15-10-4(c) — 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.