last update 1-1-2005

Louisiana's Whistleblower Laws

Louisiana has 3 different statutes that relate to the prevention of an employee facing retaliation for having disclosed information about the employer's conduct.

They are (1) a general provision relating to all employees disclosing a "violation of law", (2) another that is directly related to public employees and (3) a third that is directly related to disclosures of environmental violations. These three statutes are presented and discussed below.

General Provisions Relating All Employees

During 1997, the Louisiana Legislature passed a whistleblower law located at RS 23:967 that is aimed at protecting all employees against employment reprisals relating to their telling of "violations of law". Here is the statute:

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 of practice that is in violation of state law,
(2)..Provides inormation 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's fees, and court costs.

C...For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the definitions acribed 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 Setion shall prohibit an employer from enforcing an established employment policy, procedure, or practice or exempt an employee from compliances 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.

Comments on General Statute:

By the very nature of the wording of this statute, there must be a "violation of law" for the employee to have a cause of action. However, it is a common concept that when a law is suceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purposes of the law (see La First Circuit case of Bunch vs Town of St Francisville). To that extent, if there are laws and rules establishing that law enforcement offices are to maintain certain levels of integrity, then investigating a case without being independent of the parties would be a violation of that law.

Be sure you have a claim first. If the court finds that the suit was brought in bad faith or that the employer's acts and practices were not in violation of law, the court could award attorney fees against the employee and in favor of the employer.

The La Fifth Circuit held in 2001 in the Nolan case that this statute requires that suit be brought within one year of the date of the employer's action against the employee.

The La Fourth Circuit in 2004 Hale vs Touro held that under this statute, plaintiff must show that the employer's practices were in actual violation of a state statue, and not simply practices disagreed with or found distasteful by the employer.

The Fourth Circuit also found in 2004 in Mendonca v Tidewater that this statute only applies to conduct that occurs in Louisiana.

In Goldsby, the First Circuit held that the Court did not have jurisdiction to reinstate a state employee or give him back pay since that was the province of the La Civil Service Commission. However, the Court did jurisdiction to award compensatory damages and reasonable attorney fees.

Statute relating to Public Employees and Violations of the Governmental Code of Ethics

A statute protecting public employees against employer retaliation was first passed by the La Legislature in 1979 but has been amended several times, as recently as 1999. RS 42:1169 provides:

A...Any public employee who reports to his agency head or the Board [of Ethics] information which he reasonably believes is a violation of any provision of law within the jurisdiction of the board or of any order, rule, or regulation issued hereunder or any other alleged acts of impropriety within any governmental entity shall be free from discipline or reprisal for reporting said acts of alleged impropriety. No employee with authority to hire and fire, supervisor, agency head, or other elected official shall subject to reprisal any public employee because of said employee's efforts to disclose such acts of alleged impropriety.

B...Any public employee who reports to a person or entity of competent authority or jurisdiction information which he reasonably believes is a violation of any law or of any order, rule, or regulation issued in accorance with law or any other alleged acts of impropriety related to the scope or duties of public employment or public office within any branch of state government or any political subdivison shall be free from discipline or reprisal for reproting said acts of alleged impropriety. No employee with authority to hire and fire, supervisor, agency head, or other elected official shall subject to reprisal any such public employee because of said employee's efforts to disclose such acts of alleged impropriety.

C...(1)..In the event that any public employee is suspended, demoted, or dismissed in violation of this Section as an act of reprisal for reporting an alleged act of impropriety, such employee shall report such action to the Board [of Ethics].

(2) An employee who is wrongfully suspended, demoted, or dismissed shall be entitled to reinstatement of his employemnt and entitled to receive any lost income and benefits for the period of any suspension, demotion, or dismissal.

D...Any person who violates this Setion shall be subject to the same fines and penalties provided for other violations of this Chapter.

Comments on statute relating to public employees

A separate statute, RS 42:1163 sets out a separate time period of two years in which the employee can file a claim under the Code of Governmental Ethics after the employer takes action against the employee.

In Puig, the La Fifth Circuit held in 2000 that although RS 42:1169 specifically applied to public employees, such public employees could also have a valid cause of action under RS 23:967 if the facts fit that statute. Thus, public employees were not limited to RS 42:1169.

The La Fifth Circuit case of Nolan had some interesting discussion of the interplay between RS 42:1169 and RS 23:967 and that discussion is stated here for clairity.

"A review of the two statutes in question reveals that while they are both "whistle-blower" statues, RS 42:1169 pertains to violations, or alleged violations , of the Code of Governmental Ethics. In order for RS 42:1169 to apply, a public employee must first report what he reasonably believes to be a "violation of any provision of law within the jurisdiciton of the board [of ethics] or of any order, rule, or regulation issued hereunder or any other alleged acts of impropriety."

"RS 23:967 is clearly distinct, and targeted at more serious conduct, in that it specifies that the employer must have committed a "violation of state law" for an employee to be protected from reprisal. RS 42:1169 does not require a violation of state law, merely an "alleged act of impropriety" under the Code of Governemntal Ethics for the public employee to be protected from discipline or reprisal.

Jurisdiction to enforce the Code of Governmental Ethics lies in the Board of Ethics. (LRS 42:1132). The court found no private right of action under the Code of Governmental Ethics; the employee's remedy is to complian to the Board of Ethics, which then investigates and takes action to protect the employee, if appropriate."

In the First Circuit case of Goldsby vs St of La, the Court held that this statute only applies to violations of the Code of Ethics and if the plaintiff did not report those violations to the Board, he has no cause of action.

Statute Relating to Environmental Allegations

Revised Statute 30:2027 was adopted by the La Legislature in 1981 and was amended in 1999. It provides the following:

A...No firm, business, private or public corporation, partnership, individual employer, or federal, state, or local bgovernmental agency shall act in a retaliatory manner against an employee, acting in good faith, who does any of the following:

(1)..Discloses, or threatens to disclose, to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy, practice of the employer, or another employer with whom there is a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of an environmental law, rule, or regulation.
(2)..Provides information to, or testifies before any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into any environmental violation by the employer, or another employer with whom there is a business relationship, of an environmental law, rule, or regulation.

B...(1.)..Any employee against whom any action is taken as a result of acting under subsection A of this Section may commence a civil action in a district court of the employee's parish of domicile, and shall recover from his employer triple damages resulting from the action taken against him and all costs of preparing, filing, prosecuting, appealing, or otherwise conducting a law suit, including attorney's fees, if the court finds that Subsection A of this Section has been violated. In addition, the employee shall be entitled to all other civil and criminal remedies available under any other state, federal, or local law.

(2.)..(a)..The term "action is taken" shall include firing, layoff, lockout, loss of promotion, loss of raise, loss of present position, loss of job duties or responsibilities, imposition of onerous duties or responsibilities, or any other action or inaction the court finds was taken as a result of a report of an environmental violation.
(b).."Damages" to be tripled pursuant to Paragraph B(1) of this Section shall be for the period of the damage, but not to exceed three years, and shall include but not be limited to lost wages, lost anticipated wages due to a wage increase, or loss of anticipated wages which would have resulted from a lost promotion, and if the period of damage exceeds three years, the employee shall thereafter be entitled to actual damages. In addtiion to the above, "damages" shall also include any property lost as a result of lost wages, lost benefits, and any physical or emotional damages resulting therefrom.

C. This Section shall have no application to any employee who, acting without direction from his employer or his agent, deliberately violates any provision of this Subtitle or of the regulations, or permit or license terms and conditons in pursuance thereof.

Comments on Environmental statute:

Neither the statute nor any cases directly address the time period within which a case should be brought. However, this statute has requirements that are similar to RS 23:967 and should be considered to be controlled by the general tort law and require that suit be filed within one year of the employer's action against the employee.

In Bartlett vs Reese, the La First Circuit held that not only was it illegal for an employer to terminate an employer for reporting an environmental violation of the employer, it was also illegal to terminate an employee for reporting a violation of another company, even if it was a customer of the employer.


========================  WARNING  =======================
                      AND DISCLAIMER
This information is provided for the reader's benefit in
becoming familiar with the legal matters discussed.  Your
particular facts may be different from the points above.
You should not rely on the above data without consulting a 
attorney to discuss the specific facts of your case
and the law of your state.
==========================================================

If you live in Louisiana and want to talk about your situation, please call me at: