Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (2026)
Definitions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
230.80(1m)(1m) “Appointing authority” means the chief officer of any governmental unit unless another person is authorized to appoint subordinate staff by the constitution or any law.
230.80(2)(2) “Disciplinary action” means any action taken with respect to an employee which has the effect, in whole or in part, of a penalty, including but not limited to any of the following:
230.80(2)(a)(a) Dismissal, demotion, transfer, removal of any duty assigned to the employee’s position, refusal to restore, suspension, reprimand, verbal or physical harassment or reduction in base pay.
230.80(2)(b)(b) Denial of education or training, if the education or training may reasonably be expected to lead to an appointment, promotion, performance evaluation or other personnel action.
230.80(2)(d)(d) Failure to increase base pay, except with respect to the determination of a discretionary performance award.
230.80(3)(a)(a) A person employed by the office of the governor, the courts, the legislature or a service agency under subch. IV of ch. 13.
230.80(3)(b)(b) A person who is, or whose immediate supervisor is, assigned to an executive salary group under s. 20.923 or a person who has, or whose immediate supervisor has, a position specified in s. 36.115 (3m) (ae) to (f).
230.80(4)(4) “Governmental unit” means any association, authority, board, commission, department, independent agency, institution, office, society, or other body in state government created or authorized to be created by the constitution or any law, including the legislature, the office of the governor, and the courts. “Governmental unit” does not mean any political subdivision of the state or body within one or more political subdivisions that is created by law or by action of one or more political subdivisions.
230.80(5)(5) “Information” means information gained by the employee which the employee reasonably believes demonstrates:
230.80(5)(b)(b) Mismanagement or abuse of authority in state or local government, a substantial waste of public funds or a danger to public health and safety.
230.80(6)(6) “Merit further investigation” means reasonably indicates the existence of a situation justifying inquiry.
230.80(7)(7) “Mismanagement” means a pattern of incompetent management actions which are wrongful, negligent or arbitrary and capricious and which adversely affect the efficient accomplishment of an agency function. “Mismanagement” does not mean the mere failure to act in accordance with a particular opinion regarding management techniques.
230.80(8)(8) “Retaliatory action” means a disciplinary action taken because of any of the following:
230.80(8)(a)(a) The employee lawfully disclosed information under s. 230.81 or filed a complaint under s. 230.85 (1).
230.80(8)(b)(b) The employee testified or assisted or will testify or assist in any action or proceeding relating to the lawful disclosure of information under s. 230.81 by another employee.
230.80(8)(c)(c) The appointing authority, agent of an appointing authority or supervisor believes the employee engaged in any activity described in par. (a) or (b).
230.80(9)(9) “Substantial waste of public funds” means an unnecessary expenditure of a substantial amount of money or a series of unnecessary expenditures of smaller amounts of money.
230.80 HistoryHistory: 1983 a. 409; 1995 a. 27, 326; 1997 a. 237; 2005 a. 74; 2013 a. 20; 2015 a. 55.
230.80 AnnotationA “pattern of incompetent management actions” under sub. (7) requires more than a claim of a single act of incompetent management. A continuing course of conduct requires multiple actions to constitute a pattern. Hutson v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 2003 WI 97, 263 Wis. 2d 612, 665 N.W.2d 212, 01-2959.
230.80 AnnotationAn opinion alone, as to the lawfulness or appropriateness of government activity is not “information” as that term is defined in sub. (5). Department of Justice v. DWD, 2015 WI 114, 365 Wis. 2d 694, 875 N.W.2d 545, 13-1488.
230.80 AnnotationThe most reasonable interpretation of sub. (8) (c) is that it is aimed at situations when a supervisor retaliates on the basis of a mistake of fact, such as when a supervisor is told that an employee engaged in conduct that could constitute disclosure of information, but the employee had not in fact engaged in that conduct — not when the employee is not protected by ss. 230.80 to 230.89, but the employer believed the employee was protected by ss. 230.80 to 230.89. Department of Justice v. DWD, 2015 WI 114, 365 Wis. 2d 694, 875 N.W.2d 545, 13-1488.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: State of Wisconsin Dep't of Just. v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2015 WI 114 (Wis. 2015).
State of Wisconsin Dep't of Just. v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2015 WI 114 (Wis. 2015). “One month later, Schigur was removed from her position as DCI Public Integrity Director and returned to her previous position as Special Agent In-Charge.”
Hutson v. State Pers. Comm'n, 2003 WI 97 (Wis. 2003). “2 Following a five-day hearing, the Commission issued a decision and order dismissing the complaint, finding that Hutson's memo was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of a "disclosure" of "information" relating to *618 "mismanagement" defined in Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (7) as…”
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997(1)(b) adopts the definition of "disciplinary action" given in Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (2), namely, "any action taken with respect to an employee.”
State v. Luis C. Salinas, 2016 WI 44 (Wis. 2016). “8 The Francis court observed that "[a] broad interpretation of the joinder provision is consistent with the purposes of joinder, namely trial convenience for the state and convenience and advantage to the defendant.”
Hutson v. State Pers. Com'n, 2002 WI App 249 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “" 1 The Commission, following a five-day hearing, determined that Hutson's memo to her supervisor, advising him of her caseload concerns, was not a disclosure of information protected under Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (1995-96) of the Whistleblower Law.”
State v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2015 WI App 22 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “Relying on an unpublished opinion from this court and federal district court opinion, DOJ asserts that opinions of an employee do not qualify as "information" under Wis.”
Dr. William P. Harman v. Univ. of Tennessee, 353 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2011). “2011)); Wisconsin ( Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (2)(a) (2009)). 6 At least one commentator has observed the unusually restrictive nature of Tennessee’s whistleblower statute as compared to “the broad measures” taken by other states, noting that our statute applies “only where there has…”
Burkes v. Klauser, 517 N.W.2d 503 (Wis. 1994). “" Sections 230.80(3)(b), 895.65(1)(b)2., Stats.”
Albrechtsen v. Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2005 WI App 241 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “§§ 230.80 through 230.89. Albrechtsen responded to the motion by acknowledging "that his claims .”
Barnhill v. Bd. of Regents of UW Sys., 462 N.W.2d 249 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “"Information," under each statute, sec. 230.80(5), Stats., and sec. 895.65(1)(d), Stats.”
Bethards v. State Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2017 WI App 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “227 (2013-14) 1 review is whether the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development's Equal Rights Division ("ERD") erred when it concluded a former state employee failed to comply with the Whistleblower Protection Law, Wis. Stat. §§ 230.80 - *354 230.89. Specifically, the…”
Masri v. State of Labor & Indus. Review, 2013 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “997(l)(b) (defining " '[disciplinary action'" as defined in Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (2)). In other words, while subsection (3) prohibits "disciplinary action against, or threaten[ed] .”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(2) — 2 cases
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997(1)(b) adopts the definition of "disciplinary action" given in Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (2), namely, "any action taken with respect to an employee.”
Albrechtsen v. Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2005 WI App 241 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “§§ 230.80 through 230.89. Albrechtsen responded to the motion by acknowledging "that his claims .”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(2)(a) — 1 case
Dr. William P. Harman v. Univ. of Tennessee, 353 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2011). “2011)); Wisconsin ( Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (2)(a) (2009)). 6 At least one commentator has observed the unusually restrictive nature of Tennessee’s whistleblower statute as compared to “the broad measures” taken by other states, noting that our statute applies “only where there has…”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(3) — 2 cases
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review, 2014 WI 81 (Wis. 2014). “997(1)(b) adopts the definition of "disciplinary action" given in Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (2), namely, "any action taken with respect to an employee.”
Albrechtsen v. Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2005 WI App 241 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “§§ 230.80 through 230.89. Albrechtsen responded to the motion by acknowledging "that his claims .”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(3)(b) — 1 case
Burkes v. Klauser, 517 N.W.2d 503 (Wis. 1994). “" Sections 230.80(3)(b), 895.65(1)(b)2., Stats.”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(5) — 4 cases
State v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2015 WI App 22 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “Relying on an unpublished opinion from this court and federal district court opinion, DOJ asserts that opinions of an employee do not qualify as "information" under Wis.”
Barnhill v. Bd. of Regents of UW Sys., 462 N.W.2d 249 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “"Information," under each statute, sec. 230.80(5), Stats., and sec. 895.65(1)(d), Stats.”
Hutson v. State Pers. Com'n, 2002 WI App 249 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “" 1 The Commission, following a five-day hearing, determined that Hutson's memo to her supervisor, advising him of her caseload concerns, was not a disclosure of information protected under Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (1995-96) of the Whistleblower Law.”
Albrechtsen v. Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2005 WI App 241 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “§§ 230.80 through 230.89. Albrechtsen responded to the motion by acknowledging "that his claims .”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(5)(a) — 1 case
State of Wisconsin Dep't of Just. v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2015 WI 114 (Wis. 2015). “One month later, Schigur was removed from her position as DCI Public Integrity Director and returned to her previous position as Special Agent In-Charge.”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(7) — 3 cases
Hutson v. State Pers. Comm'n, 2003 WI 97 (Wis. 2003). “2 Following a five-day hearing, the Commission issued a decision and order dismissing the complaint, finding that Hutson's memo was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of a "disclosure" of "information" relating to *618 "mismanagement" defined in Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (7) as…”
Barnhill v. Bd. of Regents of UW Sys., 462 N.W.2d 249 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “"Information," under each statute, sec. 230.80(5), Stats., and sec. 895.65(1)(d), Stats.”
Hutson v. State Pers. Com'n, 2002 WI App 249 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “" 1 The Commission, following a five-day hearing, determined that Hutson's memo to her supervisor, advising him of her caseload concerns, was not a disclosure of information protected under Wis. Stat. § 230.80 (1995-96) of the Whistleblower Law.”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(8) — 2 cases
State of Wisconsin Dep't of Just. v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2015 WI 114 (Wis. 2015). “One month later, Schigur was removed from her position as DCI Public Integrity Director and returned to her previous position as Special Agent In-Charge.”
Albrechtsen v. Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2005 WI App 241 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “§§ 230.80 through 230.89. Albrechtsen responded to the motion by acknowledging "that his claims .”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(8)(a) — 1 case
State v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2015 WI App 22 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “Relying on an unpublished opinion from this court and federal district court opinion, DOJ asserts that opinions of an employee do not qualify as "information" under Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(8)(c) — 1 case
State of Wisconsin Dep't of Just. v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2015 WI 114 (Wis. 2015). “One month later, Schigur was removed from her position as DCI Public Integrity Director and returned to her previous position as Special Agent In-Charge.”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.80(9) — 1 case
Barnhill v. Bd. of Regents of UW Sys., 462 N.W.2d 249 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “"Information," under each statute, sec. 230.80(5), Stats., and sec. 895.65(1)(d), Stats.”
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.