Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-119a (2026)

Employer immunity from liability and suit for disclosure of employment information

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

44-119a. Employer immunity from liability and suit for disclosure of employment information. (a) Unless otherwise provided by law, an employer, or an employer's designee, who discloses information about a current or former employee to a prospective employer of the employee shall be qualifiedly immune from civil liability.

(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, an employer who discloses information about a current or former employee to a prospective employer of the employee shall be absolutely immune from civil liability. The immunity applies only to disclosure of the following:

(1) Date of employment;

(2) pay level;

(3) job description and duties; and

(4) wage history.

(c) Unless otherwise provided by law, an employer who responds in writing to a written request concerning a current or former employee from a prospective employer of that employee shall be absolutely immune from civil liability for disclosure of the following information to which an employee may have access:

(1) Written employee evaluations which were conducted prior to the employee's separation from the employer and to which an employee shall be given a copy upon request; and

(2) whether the employee was voluntarily or involuntarily released from service and the reasons for the separation.

(d) This section shall apply to causes of action accruing on and after the effective date of this act.

History: L. 1995, ch. 122, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2024–2025 · leading case: Horinek v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (D. Kan. 2024).
Horinek v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (D. Kan. 2024). · cites it 4× “17, 2015) (Anderson reasoning no longer correct after Kansas legislature passed Section 44-119a, which provides immunity to employers for disclosing truthful information about former employees but does not specifically extend such immunity to employers who violate blacklisting…”
Zickel v. Happer (D. Kan. 2025). “71 The Tenth Circuit rejected these arguments and held that Anderson is binding precedent.72 Because the Tenth Circuit has definitively ruled on this issue and because Plaintiff only points to one unpublished case in his favor, the Court does not find this issue “unsettled.”
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.