Whistleblower Protection Lawyers Archives

Must a whistleblower prove retaliatory motive in a DOL whistleblower retaliation case?

A SOX whistleblower need not demonstrate the existence of a retaliatory motive on the part of the employer to establish that protected activity was a contributing factor to the personnel action. But evidence of a retaliatory motive, e.g., statement of retaliatory animus or resentment of the complainant’s whistleblowing, is relevant circumstantial evidence to prove retaliation.

Is a whistleblower’s motive for engaging in protected activity relevant in a whistleblower protection case?

Motive for engaging in protected activity not relevant in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower-protection case A whistleblower’s motive for engaging in protected conduct is irrelevant. See Henderson … Continued

Why should courts be skeptical of an adverse employment action taken based on subjective criteria?

Subjective standards are difficult for courts to evaluate and difficult for plaintiffs to rebut, and their use in employment decisions should be viewed with suspicion. See Hill v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 885 F.2d 804, 808-09 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 1009 (1988) (Blackmun J., concurring) ( “Allowing an employer to escape liability simply by articulating vague, inoffensive-sounding subjective criteria would disserve Title VII’s goal of eradicating discrimination in employment.”); Miles v. M.N.C. Corp., 750 F.2d 867, 871 (11th Cir. 1985) (“subjective evaluations . . . provide a ready mechanism for … discrimination.”).

Does concealment of potential liability violate federal securities laws?

Regulation S-K Item 103 requires the corporation to briefly describe material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to … Continued

What is the half-truth doctrine in federal securities law?

When a corporation speaks through a public filing or informally, e.g., by issuing a press release, the half-truth doctrine requires the corporation to include … Continued

Is an employer’s attempt to stop a corporate whistleblower from blowing the whistle to the government actionable retaliation?

Yes, an employer’s effort to force a corporate whistleblower to waive the non-waivable right to report unlawful conduct to the government is actionable retaliation. In … Continued

Is a lawsuit against a whistleblower actionable retaliation?

Suing a Whistleblower Can Give Rise to a Retaliation Claim Filing a lawsuit without a sufficient factual basis to dissuade a whistleblower or discrimination … Continued

Does an employer’s failure to follow its personnel policies and practices prove retaliation?

An employer’s departure from its customary practice or its personnel policies is relevant circumstantial evidence of retaliation. In Hobgood v. Illinois Gaming Bd., 731 F.3d … Continued

Where can a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower appeal a decision of the Administrative Review Board?

A SOX whistleblower may, within 60 days of the ARB’s issuing its final decision, file a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the circuit in which the alleged SOX violation occurred, or in the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the alleged violation.

What is the scope of discovery in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower case?

The scope of discovery in Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower cases is broad. In an order granting a motion to compel discovery in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower case, an ALJ held that “[u]nless it is clear that the information sought can have no possible bearing on a party’s claims or defenses, requests for discovery should be permitted.”

Can a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower appeal an Administrative Law Judge’s decision?

How can a SOX whistleblower appeal an ALJ’s decision? A SOX whistleblower can file a petition for review with the ARB within 14 days after the … Continued

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.

Page 6