65-4928.
Employer retribution for reporting; prohibition; remedy.
(a) No employer shall discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee for making any report pursuant to K.S.A. 65-4923 or 65-4924.
(b) Any employer who violates the provisions of subsection (a) shall be liable to the aggrieved employee for damages for any wages or other benefits lost due to the discharge or discrimination plus a civil penalty in an amount not exceeding the amount of such damages. Such damages and civil penalty shall be recoverable in an individual action brought by the aggrieved employee. If the aggrieved employee substantially prevails on any of the allegations contained in the pleadings in an action allowed by this section, the court, in its discretion, may allow the employee reasonable attorney fees as part of the costs.
History:
L. 1986, ch. 229, § 9; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Whether lack of pretermination process violated discharged county employee's procedural due process rights examined. Anglemeyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., 848 F. Supp. 938, 940 (1994).
2. Federal trial court did not abuse discretion by dismissing state claims after deciding federal claim. Anglemeyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., 58 F.3d 533, 540 (1995).
Goodman v. Wesley Med. Ctr., L.L.C., 78 P.3d 817 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 6דK.S.A. 65-4928 protects health care providers from discharge or discrimination for such mandatory reporting.”
Anglemyer v. Hamilton Cnty. Hosp., 848 F. Supp. 938 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 10ד§ 65-4928) provide adequate post-deprivation relief to satisfy the requirements of due process.”
Vesom v. Atchison Hosp. Ass'n, 279 F. App'x 624 (10th Cir. 2008). “*639 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-4928 . The Kansas Supreme court has authorized a whistle-blower action in tort by an at-will employee for retaliatory termination.”
Anglemyer v. Hamilton Cnty. Hosp., 58 F.3d 533 (10th Cir. 1995). “Her state law claims alleged the hospital breached an implied employment contract between the parties, violated the Kansas Risk Management Act, Kan.Stat. Ann. § 65-4928(a) (1994), and terminated her *535 in retaliation for her compliance with the Act.”
Feldkamp v. The Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth. (D. Kan. 2025). · cites it 9דMEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Michael Feldkamp filed this removal action against his former employer, Defendant University of Kansas Hospital Authority, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), and Kansas state law…”
Ellis v. Hutchinson Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. (D. Kan. 2022). · cites it 4ד) The court understands from this argument that, before October 1 The court denied the motion filed on November 3 as moot in light of the amended motion.”
Farris v. Labette Cnty. Med. Ctr. (D. Kan. 2021). · cites it 2דDefendant asserts a counterclaim against Plaintiff for breach of fiduciary duty, which is also governed by state law.”
Byrnes v. St. Catherine Hosp. (D. Kan. 2024). · cites it 2ד§ 65-4928 (Count 2); ADA (Count 3); Fraud (Count 4); Fraud by Silence (Count 5); Promissory Estoppel/Detrimental Reliance (Count 7); and Common Law Retaliation under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (Count 10). Doc. 165 at 17–18 (Pretrial Order ¶ 4.”
— K.S.A. § 65-4928(a) — 1 case
Anglemyer v. Hamilton Cnty. Hosp., 58 F.3d 533 (10th Cir. 1995). “Her state law claims alleged the hospital breached an implied employment contract between the parties, violated the Kansas Risk Management Act, Kan.Stat. Ann. § 65-4928(a) (1994), and terminated her *535 in retaliation for her compliance with the Act.”
— K.S.A. § 65-4928(b) — 1 case
Goodman v. Wesley Med. Ctr., L.L.C., 78 P.3d 817 (Kan. 2003). “K.S.A. 65-4928 protects health care providers from discharge or discrimination for such mandatory reporting.”
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.