Matthew Purushotham
Wed, 02/14/2024
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that whistleblowers bringing claims for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act do not need to prove that they were victims of intentional retaliation. The Court also reinstated a $900,000 jury verdict awarded to a research strategist fired by UBS Group AG.
The whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in 2002 on the heels of high-profile instances of corporate fraud such as those occurring at Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International, to protect employees who report such fraud from retaliation. In Murray v. UBS, the whistleblower claimed that he was fired for refusing to falsify reports in violation of SEC reporting requirements when pressured by the company’s traders to do so. UBS claimed the employee was simply fired as part of a company reorganization.
In a unanimous ruling, the Court found that, although Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowers do need to prove that their protected activity was a “contributing factor” in an adverse action taken against them, they are not required to show that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. The Court explained that it “does not matter whether the employer was motivated by retaliatory animus or was motivated, for example, by the belief that the employee might be happier in a position that did not have SEC reporting requirements.” The Court distinguished the retaliation provision under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act with those in statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that require employees to show that their protected activities were substantial or motivating factors in retaliatory actions taken against them.
If you believe your employer has terminated your employment or taken some other adverse employment action against you, you can contact MSE at info@mselaborlaw.com.
