La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967 (2026)

Employee protection from reprisal; prohibited practices; remedies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§967.  Employee protection from reprisal; prohibited practices; remedies

A.  An employer shall not take reprisal against an employee who in good faith, and after advising the employer of the violation of law:

(1)  Discloses or threatens to disclose a workplace act or practice that is in violation of state law.

(2)  Provides information to or testifies before any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into any violation of law.

(3)  Objects to or refuses to participate in an employment act or practice that is in violation of law.

B.  An employee may commence a civil action in a district court where the violation occurred against any employer who engages in a practice prohibited by Subsection A of this Section. If the court finds the provisions of Subsection A of this Section have been violated, the plaintiff may recover from the employer damages, reasonable attorney fees, and court costs.

C.  For the purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the definitions ascribed below:

(1)  "Reprisal" includes firing, layoff, loss of benefits, or any discriminatory action the court finds was taken as a result of an action by the employee that is protected under Subsection A of this Section; however, nothing in this Section shall prohibit an employer from enforcing an established employment policy, procedure, or practice or exempt an employee from compliance with such.

(2)  "Damages" include compensatory damages, back pay, benefits, reinstatement, reasonable attorney fees, and court costs resulting from the reprisal.

D.  If suit or complaint is brought in bad faith or if it should be determined by a court that the employer's act or practice was not in violation of the law, the employer may be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs from the employee.

Acts 1997, No. 1104, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 184 cases (75 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Accardo v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem., 943 So. 2d 381 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Accardo v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem., 943 So. 2d 381 (La. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 17× “R.S. 23:967 (Louisiana Whistleblower Statute).”
Nolan v. Jefferson Par. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 2, 790 So. 2d 725 (La. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 15× “An employer shall not take reprisal against an employee who in good faith, and after advising the employer of the violation of law: (1) Discloses or threatens to disclose a workplace act or practice that is in violation of state law.”
Hale v. Touro Infirmary, 886 So. 2d 1210 (La. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “R.S. 23:967, Louisiana's "whistleblower statute" (hereinafter "Whistleblower Statute").”
Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 767 F. Supp. 2d 678 (W.D. La. 2011). · cites it 12× “), and Louisiana’s Whistle-blower Statute (La.Rev.Stat. § 23:967, et seq.). 1 Specifically, plaintiff alleges she was the only black registered nurse in Dauterive’s emergency room; she was demoted from the position of charge nurse to staff nurse on April 27, 2007; this demotion…”
Collins v. State ex rel. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 118 So. 3d 43 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 15× “R.S. 23:967 (the Louisiana Whistle-blower Statute) and that DNR and Mr.”
Puig v. Greater New Orleans Expressway Com'n, 772 So. 2d 842 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 13× “R.S. 23:967. On September 1, 1999, the Causeway Commission filed exceptions of prematurity, no right of action and no cause of action.”
Langley v. Pinkerton's Inc., 220 F. Supp. 2d 575 (M.D. La. 2002). · cites it 8× “R.S. 23:967 (doc. 1). Defendants’ actions in discharging and/or terminating Grimes were alleged to constitute retaliatory discharge in violation of 42 U.”
Velazquez v. Landcoast Insulation, Inc., 999 So. 2d 318 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 23× “R.S. 23:967 (the "whistle blower" statute), along with the federal claims, constitutional violations, and state law claims listed in his federal court complaint.”
Williams v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. of West Feliciana Par., 250 F. Supp. 3d 90 (M.D. La. 2017). · cites it 10× “intiffs claim under Louisiana Revised Statutes section 23:967 (“Louisiana Whistleblower Statute”) because Plaintiff cannot establish that she reported an actual violation of state law, as required by the statute; (2) on Plaintiffs state-law whistleblower claim because Plaintiff…”
Corley v. State Ex Rel. Div. of Admin., Off. of Risk Mgmt., 816 F. Supp. 2d 297 (M.D. La. 2011). · cites it 9× “R.S. 23:967, La.R.S. 23:1361(B) and Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315 for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Goldsby v. State, Dept. of Corr., 861 So. 2d 236 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “R.S. 23:967, Louisiana's "whistleblower" statute.”
Broussard v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov't, 45 F. Supp. 3d 553 (W.D. La. 2014). · cites it 5× “R.S. 23:967 and 30:2027; (8) that the plaintiff has not stated a claim under La.”
Show all 184 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(A): 35 cases
Accardo v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem., 943 So. 2d 381 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “R.S. 23:967 (Louisiana Whistleblower Statute).”
Goulas v. Lagreca, 945 F. Supp. 2d 693 (E.D. La. 2013).
Clark v. City of Alexandria, 116 F.4th 472 (5th Cir. 2024).
Williams v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. of West Feliciana Par., 250 F. Supp. 3d 90 (M.D. La. 2017). “intiffs claim under Louisiana Revised Statutes section 23:967 (“Louisiana Whistleblower Statute”) because Plaintiff cannot establish that she reported an actual violation of state law, as required by the statute; (2) on Plaintiffs state-law whistleblower claim because Plaintiff…”
Mitchell v. Univ. of Louisiana Sys., 154 F. Supp. 3d 364 (M.D. La. 2015).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(A)(1): 8 cases
Goulas v. Lagreca, 945 F. Supp. 2d 693 (E.D. La. 2013).
Hunter v. Rapides Par. Coliseum Auth., 158 So. 3d 173 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
Ricalde v. Evonik Stockhausen, LLC, 202 So. 3d 548 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
Encalarde v. New Orleans Ctr. for Creative Arts/Riverfront, 158 So. 3d 826 (La. 2015).
Jeffrey Gautreau v. Enlink Midstream Operating GP, LLC Enlink Midstream Operating, LP Edward Cormier, Jr. Gregory Gibson (La. Ct. App. 2022).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(A)(2): 1 case
Fugarino v. Milling Benson Woodward L.L.P. (E.D. La. 2022).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(A)(3): 3 cases
Beard v. Seacoast Elec., Inc., 951 So. 2d 1168 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
Jeffrey Gautreau v. Enlink Midstream Operating GP, LLC Enlink Midstream Operating, LP Edward Cormier, Jr. Gregory Gibson (La. Ct. App. 2022).
Sanders v. Christwood, LLC (E.D. La. 2021).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(B): 9 cases
Collins v. State ex rel. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 118 So. 3d 43 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 23:967 (the Louisiana Whistle-blower Statute) and that DNR and Mr.”
Mendonca v. Tidewater Inc., 862 So. 2d 505 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
Dobyns v. Univ. of La. Sys., 275 So. 3d 911 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
Swear v. Lawson, 288 F. Supp. 3d 669 (E.D. La. 2018).
Melancon v. Town of Amite City, 261 So. 3d 7 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(C)(1): 7 cases
Dobyns v. Univ. of La. Sys., 275 So. 3d 911 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
Swear v. Lawson, 288 F. Supp. 3d 669 (E.D. La. 2018).
Daniel v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. & A & M Coll. (M.D. La. 2021).
Lee v. Hood Container of Louisiana, LLC (M.D. La. 2025).
Dobyns v. Univ. of La. Sys., 275 So. 3d 911 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(C)(2): 1 case
Revell v. Prince Preferred Hotels Shreveport L L C (W.D. La. 2024).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(D): 4 cases
Accardo v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem., 943 So. 2d 381 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “R.S. 23:967 (Louisiana Whistleblower Statute).”
Black v. St. Tammany Par. Hosp., 25 So. 3d 711 (La. 2009).
Deon Danna v. the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., L.L.C., Marriott Int'l, Inc., Russell Miller, & Zachary Curry (La. Ct. App. 2021).
Morales v. New Orleans City (E.D. La. 2023).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967(a): 1 case
Lefort v. Lafourche Par. Fire Prot. Dist. 3, 39 F. Supp. 3d 820 (E.D. La. 2014).
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.