K.S.A. » Chapter 44
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-117 (2026)

Employer not to prevent discharged employee from obtaining employment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

44-117. Employer not to prevent discharged employee from obtaining employment. Any employer of labor in this state, after having discharged any person from his service, shall not prevent or attempt to prevent by word, sign or writing of any kind whatsoever any such discharged employee from obtaining employment from any other person, company or corporation, except by furnishing in writing, on request, the cause of such discharge.

History: L. 1897, ch. 144, § 1; May 8; R.S. 1923, 44-117.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Loparex, LLC v. MPI Release Tech., LLC, 964 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Loparex, LLC v. MPI Release Tech., LLC, 964 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2012). · cites it 2× “Laws 322 (“An act to prevent blacklisting by employers of labor, providing penalties therefor, and for the recovery of damages”) (codified as amended at Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-117 et seq. (2000)).”
Goodwin-Haulmark v. Menninger Clinic, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (D. Kan. 1999). · cites it 2× “, constructive discharge, and blacklisting in violation of K.S.A. § 44-117. Plaintiff con *1237 tends that defendant retaliated against her for contesting an unfavorable evaluation, and pressured her into resigning when she requested sick leave.”
Tanksley v. Rice Cnty. Sheriff's Off. (D. Kan. 2021). · cites it 8× “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-117 . Adjacent to this statute, Kansas law also provides a civil cause of action for blacklisting.”
Fitts v. Comm'r, 67 T.C.M. 2136 (Tax Ct. 1994). “Smith asserted in the letter that Plumbmaster interfered with petitioner's prospective employment by blacklisting him in violation of section 44-117 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (1986) (blacklisting statute).”
Painter v. Midwest Health, Inc. (D. Kan. 2021). · cites it 5× “Last, Count VI asserts that defendants blacklisted her, violating Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-117 and 44-119. Id.”
Schrader v. Emporia State Univ. (D. Kan. 2021). · cites it 5× “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-117 . Kansas law also provides a civil cause of action for blacklisting.”
Horinek v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (D. Kan. 2024). · cites it 4× “§ 1981 and blacklisting in violation of K.S.A. § 44-117. First Amended Petition (Doc.”
Zickel v. Happer (D. Kan. 2025). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff’s defamation claim as to the Giglio letter survives Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. D. Blacklisting In Count VI of the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for blacklisting against Defendant Happer.”
Painter v. Midwest Health, Inc. (D. Kan. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 44-117, which prohibits employers from preventing or attempting to prevent discharged employees from obtaining other employment.”
Painter v. Midwest Health (10th Cir. 2022). “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-117 . The statutory scheme also provides for criminal penalties: Any employer of labor, his agent or employee, who shall violate the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall upon conviction be fined for each offense the sum of one…”
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.