Sarbanes Oxley Whistleblower ProtectionLaw Archives

Do formal rules of evidence apply in Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower trials at the Department of Labor?

Formal rules of evidence do not apply in SOX whistleblower cases litigated before a DOL ALJ. Evidentiary rules substantially similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence, however, apply.[i] The Office of ALJ, within the Department of Labor, has adopted those rules to ensure that the most probative evidence is produced.[ii] Evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious may be excluded.[iii]

What is the statute of limitations for a SOX whistleblower retaliation case?

The deadline for a SOX whistleblower to file a complaint is 180 days after they either experience or become aware of the unlawful retaliation.[i] The clock starts ticking once “the discriminatory decision has been both made and communicated to the complainant.”[ii] A complaint is considered filed once the Department of Labor receives it. A complaint sent by mail, however, is considered filed on the date of its postmark.

Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act protect disclosures made in the ordinary course of an employee performing her job duties?

Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act protect whistleblowing in the course of performing one’s job duties? A corporate whistleblower is protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act when … Continued

Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act authorize jury trials?

Jury Trials in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Cases The Dodd-Frank Act (“Dodd-Frank”) amendments to Section 806 of SOX clarify the right to try a SOX whistleblower claim … Continued

Can whistleblowers obtain rewards or bounties for reporting fraud to the SEC?

Qualifying for an SEC Whistleblower Award How to Successfully Navigate the Process to Obtain an SEC Whistleblower Award Under the Dodd-Frank SEC Whistleblower Reward Program, a … Continued

Does the SEC protect whistleblowers?

The SEC recently brought its first enforcement action ever to be based solely on retaliation against a whistleblower. On September 29, 2016, the SEC ordered International Game Technology (“IGT”) to pay a $500,000 penalty for terminating the employment of a whistleblower because he reported to senior management and to the SEC that the company’s financial statements might be distorted. See Exchange Act Release No. 78991 (Sept. 29, 2016).

Who is protected under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?

Scope of Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Whistleblower Protection The whistleblower protection provision of SOX protects: employees, officers, and agents of publicly traded companies (companies issuing securities … Continued

What is the “reasonable cause” standard in an OSHA whistleblower investigation?

Standard Governing OSHA Whistleblower Investigations In spring 2015, OSHA issued a memo clarifying the investigative standard for OSHA whistleblower investigations. OSHA enforces more than twenty … Continued

Does the breach of an anti-retaliation policy in a Code of Ethics give rise to a retaliation claim?

The experienced whistleblower retaliation lawyers at Zuckerman Law represent whistleblowers under federal and state whistleblower retaliation laws.

If you are seeking representation in a whistleblower protection case, click here, or call us at 202-262-8959 to schedule a free preliminary consultation.

What acts of retaliation are prohibited by the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection law?

Retaliation Prohibited by the Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection Law The Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection law prohibits a broad range of retaliatory acts, including: termination; demotion; suspension; harassment; … Continued

Does the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection law authorize emotional distress damages?

The Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower law authorizes noneconomic compensatory damages, i.e., emotional distress and reputational harm. There is no cap on special damages under SOX, and some whistleblowers have obtained more than one million dollars in special damages at trial

What is the employer’s burden in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation case?

An employer must prove clearly and convincingly that it would have taken the same adverse employment action even if the employee had not engaged in protected activity.[i] The operative phrase here is “would have.” An employer fails to meet its burden if it establishes merely that it could have taken the same adverse action. “Clear and convincing” evidence can be quantified as establishing the probability of a fact at issue “in the order of above 70%.”

Page 5