An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee
regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges
of employment nor shall an employer report or threaten to report an employee’s immigration
status to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or any other immigration agency
or law enforcement agency including local and state police:
(1) Because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is
about to report to a public body, verbally or in writing, a violation, that the employee
knows or reasonably believes has occurred or is about to occur, of a law or regulation
or rule promulgated under the law of this state, a political subdivision of this state,
or the United States, unless the employee knows or has reason to know that the report
is false; or
(2) Because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation,
hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action; or
(3) Because an employee refuses to violate or assist in violating federal, state, or local
law, rule, or regulation; or
(4) Because the employee reports verbally or in writing to the employer or to the employee’s
supervisor a violation, which the employee knows or reasonably believes has occurred
or is about to occur, of a law or regulation or rule promulgated under the laws of
this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States, unless the
employee knows or has reason to know that the report is false. Provided, that if the
report is verbally made, the employee must establish by clear and convincing evidence
that the report was made.
Notes of Decisions
Senra v. Town of Smithfield, 715 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013).
· cites it 6× “III, § 7 of the Rhode Island Constitution, and the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3, when it fired him.”
Horn v. S. Union Co., 927 A.2d 292 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 4× “In light of the question now before this Court, it is particularly noteworthy that a claimant (in specific instances) can seek redress for an employer's discriminatory conduct under the FEPA, which specifies that a claimant file a charge within one year of the employer's alleged…”
Bjartmarz v. Pinnacle Real Est. Tax Serv., 771 A.2d 124 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 2× “His complaint includes counts for failure to pay overtime for holiday work, failure to make weekly payments, failure to furnish an accurate statement of earnings, and violation of the Rhode Island Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, G.L.1956 § 28-50-3. Thereafter Pinnacle filed a…”
Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 610 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2010).
“Retaliation Claim Malone’s other claim was that, in violation of the Rhode Island Whistleblower Protection Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(4), he was demoted from Engineer-in-Charge to Field Engineer 13 in November 2004 as a result of reporting to his superiors that two of his…”
Stephen R. Marques v. Kevin J. Fitzgerald, 99 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(1) (1995). The current Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act was enacted in 1995, and replaced an earlier version of the Whistleblowers' Act that carried a different statutory number, (R.”
Rossi v. Amica Mut. Ins., 446 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.R.I. 2005).
· cites it 2× “G.L. § 28-50-3. Rossi claims that Arnica terminated her because she complained of Arnica’s conduct by filing a charge with the R.”
Almeida v. United Steelworkers of Am. Int'l Union, 50 F. Supp. 2d 115 (D.R.I. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See R.I.Gen. Laws § 28-50-3 (“An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee,” because the employee reports to a public body a violation of the law which “the employee knows or reasonably believes has occurred or is about to occur.”
Michael Crenshaw v. State of Rhode Island (R.I. 2020).
· cites it 11× “Specifically, he argues that nothing in the statute requires that, in order to qualify as protected whistleblowing activity, the report of illegal activity must be made about the activities of the particular employer relative to which the Act’s protection is sought.”
Maturi v. McLaughlin Rsch. Corp., 326 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D.R.I. 2004).
· cites it 12× “R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(1) (1995). As of the Plaintiffs’ terminations in 1998, this was the only provision of the RIWPA that might arguably have applied to these circumstances.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(1) — 5 cases
Stephen R. Marques v. Kevin J. Fitzgerald, 99 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(1) (1995). The current Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act was enacted in 1995, and replaced an earlier version of the Whistleblowers' Act that carried a different statutory number, (R.”
Maturi v. McLaughlin Rsch. Corp., 326 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D.R.I. 2004).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(1) (1995). As of the Plaintiffs’ terminations in 1998, this was the only provision of the RIWPA that might arguably have applied to these circumstances.”
Michael Crenshaw v. State of Rhode Island (R.I. 2020).
“Specifically, he argues that nothing in the statute requires that, in order to qualify as protected whistleblowing activity, the report of illegal activity must be made about the activities of the particular employer relative to which the Act’s protection is sought.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(3) — 1 case
Michael Crenshaw v. State of Rhode Island (R.I. 2020).
“Specifically, he argues that nothing in the statute requires that, in order to qualify as protected whistleblowing activity, the report of illegal activity must be made about the activities of the particular employer relative to which the Act’s protection is sought.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(4) — 8 cases
Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 610 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2010).
“Retaliation Claim Malone’s other claim was that, in violation of the Rhode Island Whistleblower Protection Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(4), he was demoted from Engineer-in-Charge to Field Engineer 13 in November 2004 as a result of reporting to his superiors that two of his…”
Maturi v. McLaughlin Rsch. Corp., 326 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D.R.I. 2004).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3(1) (1995). As of the Plaintiffs’ terminations in 1998, this was the only provision of the RIWPA that might arguably have applied to these circumstances.”
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.