Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 230.83 (2026)
Retaliatory action prohibited
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
230.83(1)(1) No appointing authority, agent of an appointing authority or supervisor may initiate or administer, or threaten to initiate or administer, any retaliatory action against an employee.
230.83(2)(2) This section does not apply to an employee who discloses information if the employee knows or anticipates that the disclosure is likely to result in the receipt of anything of value for the employee or for the employee’s immediate family, unless the employee discloses information in pursuit of any award offered by any governmental unit for information to improve government administration or operation.
230.83(3)(3) Nothing in this section restricts the right of an employer to take appropriate disciplinary action against an employee who knowingly makes an untrue statement or discloses information the disclosure of which is expressly prohibited by state or federal law, rule or regulation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1994–2020 · 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). “Under Wis. Stat. § 230.83 , "[n]o appointing authority, agent of an appointing authority or supervisor may initiate or administer, or threaten to initiate or administer, any retaliatory action against an employee.”
State v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2015 WI App 22 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “Joell Schigur appeals a circuit court order reversing a decision by the Equal Rights Division (ERD) of the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) that the Department of Justice (DOJ) violated her rights under Wis. Stat. § 230.83 , 1 one of Wisconsin's whistleblowing…”
Hutson v. State Pers. Comm'n, 2003 WI 97 (Wis. 2003). “Thus, this court only examines whether Hutson disclosed information related to "mismanagement" that triggers protection from retaliation under Wis. Stat. § 230.83 . ■ , ¶ 41. We must also establish what specific disclosure of information Hutson claims is protected under…”
Burkes v. Klauser, 517 N.W.2d 503 (Wis. 1994). “Sections 230.83, 230.85 and 895.65, Stats.”
Albrechtsen v. Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2005 WI App 241 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “1 The Commission concluded that, when Albrechtsen commenced an action in federal *149 court alleging a violation of Wis. Stat. § 230.83 (1) (2003-04) (prohibiting retaliation for "whistleblow-ing"), 2 it lost jurisdiction over his earlier complaint to the Commission alleging the…”
Bethards v. State Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2017 WI App 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “The ERD found probable cause to believe the DOJ violated the Whistleblower Protection Law— specifically, Wis. Stat. § 230.83 — by placing Bethards on administrative leave in June 2013 and by terminating his employment in October 2013.”
Burton, Sabina v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys. (W.D. Wis. 2020). “5 Defendants move for summary judgment on all of 5 In her opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion, Burton attempts to assert a claim for retaliation under Wisconsin’s whistleblower law, Wis. Stat. § 230.83 , as well as a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim.”
— Wis. Stat. § 230.83(1) — 2 cases
Burkes v. Klauser, 517 N.W.2d 503 (Wis. 1994). “Sections 230.83, 230.85 and 895.65, Stats.”
Albrechtsen v. Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2005 WI App 241 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “1 The Commission concluded that, when Albrechtsen commenced an action in federal *149 court alleging a violation of Wis. Stat. § 230.83 (1) (2003-04) (prohibiting retaliation for "whistleblow-ing"), 2 it lost jurisdiction over his earlier complaint to the Commission alleging the…”
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.