44-615.
Unlawful acts against witnesses and litigants.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to discharge any employee or to discriminate in any way against any employee because of the fact that any such employee may testify as a witness before the secretary of labor, or shall sign any complaint or shall be in any way instrumental in bringing to the attention of the secretary of labor any matter of controversy between employers and employees as provided herein.
It shall also be unlawful for any two or more persons, by conspiring or confederating together, to injure in any manner any other person or persons, or any corporation, in their, or its business, labor, enterprise, or peace and security, by boycott, by discrimination, by picketing, by advertising, by propaganda, or other means, because of any action taken by any such person or persons, or any corporation, under any order of the secretary of labor, or because of any action or proceeding instituted before the secretary, or because any such person or persons, or corporation, shall have invoked the jurisdiction of the secretary in any matter provided for herein.
History:
L. 1920, ch. 29, § 15; R.S. 1923, 44-615; L. 1976, ch. 370, § 33; L. 2004, ch. 179, § 32; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Campbell v. Husky Hogs, L.L.C., 255 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2011).
· cites it 10× “In determining Kansas public policy *231 prevented a termination under those circumstances, the court held the legislature had “strongly expressed a policy against allowing employers to interfere with unemployment compensation hearings” by enacting K.S.A. 44-615. 620 F. Supp. at…”
Palmer v. Brown, 752 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1988).
· cites it 2× “39-1403(b), 39-1423(b); for testifying before the secretary of human resources, K.S.A. 44-615; or for reporting unsafe or unlawful working conditions to the secretary of human resources, K.”
Kistler v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1268 (D. Kan. 1985).
· cites it 3× “1 In promulgating K.S.A. 44-615, the legislature recognized that it makes little sense to compel witnesses to testify if they are not free to speak the truth.”
Conrad v. Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Commissioners, 237 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Kan. 2002).
“at 1269-70 (recognizing new retaliatory discharge cause of action for firing employee for testifying at workers' compensation hearing; court’s holding based on strong public policy evinced by K.S.A. 44-615, which makes it unlawful for employer to terminate employee for giving…”
Madrigal v. IBP, Inc., 811 F. Supp. 612 (D. Kan. 1993).
· cites it 2× “She contends her discharge was in retaliation for supporting Roskob’s workers’ compensation claim and also violates the public policy embodied in K.S.A. 44-615. 3 The Kansas appellate courts have recognized a number of exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine.”
Ross v. Pentair Flow Tech., LLC (D. Kan. 2020).
· cites it 2× “In response, Ross argues that K.S.A. 44-615 “makes it unlawful to discharge or discriminate in any way against an employee,” and that he “exercise[d] free speech regarding safety concerns that were not being addressed by management which significantly increased the risk of…”
Johnson v. Amazon.com Servs. LLC (D. Kan. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff alleges that (1) in violation of the Kansas Bill of Rights, defendant required him to perform work outside of his job description, which amounted to involuntary servitude; and (2) by responding to the Kansas Department of Labor’s request for information about its…”
David S. Johnson v. Amazon.com Servs. (D. Kan. 2025).
· cites it 2× “ndant in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, alleging that (1) in violation of the Kansas Bill of Rights, defendant required him to perform work outside of his job description, which amounted to involuntary servitude; and (2) by responding to the Kansas Department of…”
Palmer v. Pentair (D. Kan. 2019).
“§ 44-615. Plaintiff neither identifies any conduct by defendants that violated either of these statutes, nor which conduct by defendants he actually reported and why.”
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.