Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Whistleblower Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts amendment and passes SB 95 to strengthen state whistleblower protections
Summary
The House passed Second Substitute Senate Bill 95 after adopting a technical amendment that clarifies the employee is the reported 'party' and replaces 'substantial evidence' with the civil standard 'preponderance of the evidence.' The measure passed the House 67–1 and will return to the Senate as amended.
Representative Cunningham, the House sponsor, told colleagues the bill grew out of legislative audits — including problems found at the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control — and aims to give employees better protection when they report wrongdoing. "SB 95 affords greater protection for the whistleblower while remaining, fair to the employers," he said during floor remarks.
Representative Derek Brown moved Amendment 2 (dated March 13), which he described as a friendly change that does two things: it clarifies repeated references so that "the party" is the employee, and it replaces three uses of the word "substantial" with the civil standard "a preponderance of the evidence." "We just change it to the legal standard, a preponderance of the evidence," Brown said, explaining the change aligns the bill with civil‑law burdens of proof.
Representative Cunningham told the House the sponsor and committee were comfortable with the amendment. The House adopted Amendment 2 by voice vote. In closing remarks before the final vote, Cunningham thanked attorneys who worked on the wording and said the changes improved the bill.
Voting on Second Substitute Senate Bill 95 was opened and closed under the standard process. The House recorded 67 yes votes and 1 no vote; the bill, as amended, will be returned to the Senate for further consideration.
What happens next: The House returned the amended measure to the Senate. The bill's text now clarifies that the employee is the aggrieved party in covered claims and uses the preponderance standard for civil proceedings, which may affect how complaints are litigated or reviewed administratively.
Authority and procedural notes: During floor debate speakers referenced the "career service review office" and the courts as existing avenues employees may use to pursue retaliation claims; those references were descriptive of existing processes mentioned on the floor rather than citations to a specific statute.
