Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Corporate Whistleblower Protection Law

 

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Whistleblower Protection

Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act protects whistleblowers at covered employers who report to their supervisor or the government conduct that they reasonably believe constitutes wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, or a violation of any rule or regulation of the SEC, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.

Some SOX whistleblowers have obtained substantial recoveries, including jury verdicts of $11M and $5M in SOX whistleblower protection cases.  Leading SOX whistleblower protection lawyer Jason Zuckerman has established favorable precedent construing SOX and has obtained more than ten settlements in SOX whistleblower protection matters in excess of $1 million, two of which were above $4 million.

The experienced and effective Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection lawyers at Zuckerman Law have extensive experience representing corporate whistleblowers.  U.S. News and Best Lawyers® have named Zuckerman Law a Tier 1 firm in Litigation – Labor and Employment in the Washington DC metropolitan area in the 2021 edition of “Best Law Firms.”

In 2019, the National Law Review awarded Zuckerman its “Go-To Thought Leadership Award” for his analysis of developments in whistleblower law, including his articles about the SOX whistleblower protection law.  We represent SOX whistleblowers nationwide.

Call us today to schedule a confidential consultation with our Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection attorneys about your SOX whistleblower case.  We can be reached at 202-262-8959 or by clicking here.

The SOX whistleblower protection lawyers at Zuckerman Law have represented CEOs, CFOs, in-house counsel, partners at audit firms, and other senior professionals in high-stakes whistleblower protection matters.  Click here to read reviews and testimonials from former clients, including corporate officers and executives.

Drawing on substantial experience representing corporate whistleblowers in SOX whistleblower cases, our SOX whistleblower lawyers have published a free guide to SOX titled Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection: Robust Protection for Corporate Whistleblowers:

Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection Remedies

A prevailing SOX whistleblower can recover:

• lost wages and benefits;
• reinstatement or front pay; and
• special damages, which includes emotional distress, impairment of reputation, personal humiliation, and other non-economic harm resulting from retaliation.

There is no cap on special damages under SOX, and some state whistleblower protection laws enable whistleblowers to recover punitive damages.  Recently corporate whistleblowers have obtained substantial recoveries in SOX whistleblower cases:

• Jury Awards Former Bio-Rad Counsel $11M in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Case
• Jury Awards Six Million Dollars to Whistleblower in Sarbanes-Oxley Case
• Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Recovers Nearly $5 Million
• JP Morgan SOX Whistleblower Wins $1.13M at Trial

• UBS Whistleblower Prevails at Trial in SOX Whistleblower Case

SOX Whistleblower Retaliation Damages

Protected Whistleblowing Under Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection Law

The Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower law protects corporate whistleblowers for providing information about securities fraud, shareholder fraud, bank fraud, a violation of any SEC rule or regulation, mail fraud, or wire fraud.  The Department of Labor has construed SOX whistleblowing broadly, holding that:

• Disclosing a potential violation is protected, i.e., an employee who reasonably believes that a securities violation is imminent will be protected by SOX if he or she reports the violation before it actually occurs.
• An employee’s mistaken belief in a violation of law can be objectively reasonable.  The reasonable person standard recognizes that many employees are unlikely to be trained to recognize legally actionable conduct by their employers. To satisfy the objective component of the “reasonable belief” standard, the employee must prove that a reasonable person in the same factual circumstances with the same training and experience would believe that the employer violated securities laws.
• To be protected under SOX, the employee’s report need not “definitively and specifically” relate to one of the listed categories of fraud or securities violations in Section 806 of SOX.  The focus is “on the plaintiff’s state of mind rather than on the defendant’s conduct.” Guyden v. Aetna, Inc., 544 F.3d 376, 384 (2d Cir. 2008).

SOX Prohibited Retaliation Against Corporate Whistleblowers

The whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act prohibits a broad range of retaliatory adverse employment actions, including discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, or in any other manner discriminating against a whistleblower.  Recently a federal court of appeals held that merely outing or disclosing the identity of a whistleblower is actionable retaliation under SOX.

Proving a Violation of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Whistleblower Protection Law

To prevail under SOX’s whistleblower provision, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that

1. she engaged in protected activity;
2. the employer knew that she engaged in the protected activity;
3. she suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and
4. the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action.

A contributing factor is any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision. Causation can be inferred from timing alone where an adverse employment action follows on the heels of protected activity.  The decision-maker’s knowledge of the protected activity and close temporal proximity will suffice to prove causation in some cases.

Once the employee proves the elements of a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation claim by a preponderance of the evidence, the employer can avoid liability only if it proves by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the complainant’s protected behavior or conduct.

Filing a Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint

A Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation complaint must be filed initially with OSHA.  The complainant has the option to remove a SOX whistleblower claim to federal court once the complaint has been pending at the Department of Labor for 180 days.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Whistleblower Protection Law from Experienced SOX Whistleblower Lawyers

Protected Whistleblowing Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

• Who is protected under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
• What whistleblowing disclosures are protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
• What are examples of SOX-protected activity (protected whistleblowing)?
• Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act protect whistleblowing about potential violations of federal securities laws?
• Are SOX whistleblowers required to show that their disclosures relate “definitively and specifically” to a federal securities law?
• Is an employee’s participation in an investigation of corporate fraud protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
• What are some types of proof to show that a disclosure is objectively reasonable?
• Is a whistleblower’s motive for engaging in protected activity relevant in a whistleblower protection case?
• Does Sarbanes-Oxley protected conduct require a showing of materiality?
• Is a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower required to prove fraud?
• Are disclosures made in the course of performing one’s job duties protected?
• Must a SOX whistleblower prove that the individual who made the final decision to take the adverse action has personal knowledge of the whistleblower’s protected activity?
• Does the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower law protect employees working outside the United States?

Prohibited Whistleblower Retaliation Under Sarbanes-Oxley

• What acts of retaliation are prohibited by the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection law?
• Is constructive discharge a prohibited act of retaliation under SOX?
• Does SOX prohibit employers from “outing” confidential whistleblowers?
• Is retaliation that occurred outside of the statute of limitations period relevant evidence of retaliation?
• Does subjecting an employee to heightened scrutiny evidence retaliation?
• Does SOX prohibit post-termination retaliation?
• What is preemptive retaliation?

Proving Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Retaliation

• What is a whistleblower’s burden to prove retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
• How can a whistleblower prove retaliation?
• Must a whistleblower prove retaliatory motive in a DOL whistleblower retaliation case?
• Why should courts be skeptical of an adverse employment action taken based on subjective criteria?
• What are some methods to prove pretext in retaliation and discrimination cases?
• Does a SOX whistleblower need to prove that the employer’s reason for the adverse action is untrue?
• What is the employer’s burden in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation case?
• Does subjecting an employee to heightened scrutiny evidence retaliation?

Relief or Damages for SOX Whistleblowers

• What damages can a whistleblower recover under SOX?
• Does the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection law authorize emotional distress damages?
• What is front pay?
• Can OSHA order the reinstatement of a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower?
• If reinstatement is not feasible, can a judge award front pay in lieu of reinstatement?
• Does SOX authorize an award of punitive damages?

Litigating Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

• Can I sue an individual under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
• What is the statute of limitations for a SOX whistleblower retaliation case?
• Who administers the whistleblower-protection provision of SOX?
• What level of detail is required in a Sarbanes-Oxley complaint?
• Can a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower bring a retaliation case in federal court?
• Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act authorize jury trials?
• Where are SOX whistleblower cases litigated?
• Do formal rules of evidence apply in Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower trials at the Department of Labor?
• What is the scope of discovery in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower case?
• What is the “reasonable cause” standard in an OSHA whistleblower investigation?
• Can a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower appeal an Administrative Law Judge’s decision?
• Where can a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower appeal a decision of the Administrative Review Board?
• Do mandatory arbitration agreements encompass SOX whistleblower claims?
• Does OSHA prohibit gag clauses in settlement agreements?
• Does Section 806 of SOX preempt other claims or remedies?

Additional FAQs About the Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection Law

• Why did Congress enact the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
• Can whistleblowers obtain rewards or bounties for reporting fraud to the SEC?
• Does the breach of an anti-retaliation policy in a Code of Ethics give rise to a retaliation claim?
• Does concealment of potential liability violate federal securities laws?
• Can corporate whistleblowers use company documents to expose fraud?
• Does the SEC protect whistleblowers?
• What is the half-truth doctrine in federal securities law?

SOX Whistleblower Protections for SEC Whistleblowers

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Whistleblower Attorneys: Tier 1 Firm

We have assembled a team of leading SOX whistleblower lawyers to provide top-notch representation to Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) whistleblowers.  Recently Washingtonian magazine named two of our attorneys top whistleblower lawyers. U.S. News and Best Lawyers® have named Zuckerman Law a Tier 1 Law Firm in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area.

The SOX whistleblower lawyers at Zuckerman Law have substantial experience litigating Sarbanes Oxley whistleblower retaliation claims and have achieved substantial recoveries for officers, executives, accountants, auditors, and other senior professionals.  To schedule a free preliminary consultation, click here or call us at 202-262-8959.

• Matt Stock is a Certified Public Accountant, Certified Fraud Examiner and former KPMG external auditor.  As an auditor, Stock developed an expertise in financial statement analysis and internal controls testing and fraud recognition.  He uses his auditing experience to help IRS, CFTC and SEC whistleblowers investigate and disclose complex financial frauds to the government and develop a roadmap for the SEC to take an enforcement action.  Matt has been interviewed on CNBC, quoted extensively about whistleblower rewards in the media, and is the lead author of SEC Whistleblower Program: Tips from SEC Whistleblower Attorneys to Maximize an SEC Whistleblower Award.
• Dallas Hammer has extensive experience representing whistleblowers in retaliation and rewards claims and has written extensively about cybersecurity whistleblowing. He was selected by his peers to be included in The Best Lawyers in America® in the category of employment law in 2021 and 2022.
• Described by the National Law Journal as a “leading whistleblower attorney,” founding Principal Jason Zuckerman has established precedent under a wide range of whistleblower protection laws and obtained substantial compensation for his clients and recoveries for the government in whistleblower rewards and whistleblower retaliation cases.  He served on the Department of Labor’s Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to the Secretary of Labor to improve OSHA’s administration of federal whistleblower protection laws.  Zuckerman also served as Senior Legal Advisor to the Special Counsel at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency charged with protecting whistleblowers in the federal government.  At OSC, he oversaw investigations of whistleblower claims and obtained corrective action or relief for whistleblowers.
• Zuckerman was recognized by Washingtonian magazine as a “Top Whistleblower Lawyer” (2020, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2009, and 2007), selected by his peers to be included in The Best Lawyers in America® in the category of employment law (2011-2021) and in SuperLawyers in the category of labor and employment law (2012 and 2015-2021), is rated 10 out of 10 by Avvo, based largely on client reviews, and is rated AV Preeminent® by Martindale-Hubbell based on peer reviews
• We have published extensively on whistleblower rights and protections, and speak nationwide at seminars and continuing legal education conferences.  We blog about new developments under whistleblower retaliation and rewards laws at the Whistleblower Protection Law and SEC Awards Blog, and in 2019, the National Law Review awarded Zuckerman its “Go-To Thought Leadership Award” for his analysis of developments in whistleblower law.
• Our attorneys have been quoted by and published articles in leading business, accounting, and legal periodicals, including The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, CNBC, MarketWatch, Vox, Accounting Today, Going Concern, Law360 – Expert Analysis, Investopedia, The National Law Review, inSecurities, Government Accountability Project, S&P Global Market Intelligence, Risk & Compliance Magazine, The D&O Diary, The Compliance and Ethics Blog, Compliance Week and other printed and electronic media.

SOX Whistleblower Lawyer Client Reviews

We pride ourselves not only on the results we achieve, but also on ensuring that we provide the highest level of customer service and that our clients are kept informed of all developments in their case and play an active role in every key strategic decision in their case.    Every case is unique and every client has unique objectives that will govern how we litigate a case.

The following five client reviews are from senior corporate officials, including a CFO at a public company, that were provided through Avvo.

• “As a finance exec, I have spent my career working closely with hundreds of lawyers. On balance, Mr. Zuckerman is the best lawyer I have ever encountered. Although he runs a small law firm, I watched as he ran circles around multiple lawyers both in-house and at a large, nationally-recognized firm. Although the evidence in this matter was compelling, the other side did not have the self-awareness to understand what that meant, making for an almost impossible negotiation. Each time I was convinced we hit the final road block, Mr. Zuckerman would pull a rabbit out of his hat to progress the negotiation. He was responsive, available 24/7, and operated not only as a world class attorney, but as an “ad-hoc therapist” in what is necessarily a stressful process. He is the only lawyer I’ve ever encountered that not only has the tools to go up against the largest law firms in the nation, but also truly cares about his client, and will do the right thing to defend his client at all costs.”
• “I selected Jason to handle my case after consulting with three other lawyers because of his extensive SOX experience and negotiation skills. My decision paid off as he easily surpassed all of my expectations. He quickly analyzed the merits of my case and aggressively engaged my former employer to reach a favorable settlement, avoiding years of potential litigation. He was responsive, professional, ethical and a great advocate on my behalf. I truly believe that I could not have found a better lawyer to represent my interests. He would be the first person I would recommend if a colleague or friend were to ever need similar services. Put simply, Jason is a top notch lawyer who works tirelessly to achieve a positive outcome for his clients. It’s easy to see why he is regarded as an expert in the field.”
• “Jason Zuckerman is the most focused, thoughtful and aggressive attorneys I have ever known, let alone had the pleasure to have on my side in a highly complex legal case. He brought well-honed legal insights and a rapid pace to our legal preparations. He forcefully brought those preparations to the opposing side, which gave them little choice but to engage with us until a positive settlement was reached. In addition, we found Jason to be extremely responsive at every step, even if it required working past midnight. His character is beyond reproach and his dedication through the entire process was unwavering. If I ever need someone in my legal court again, I won’t hesitate for even a second, before I seek Jason’s support.”
• “Jason is the consummate professional when it comes to SOX retaliation claims. He is, without question, one of the most deeply knowledgeable, technical, and astute attorneys in this very specialized body of law. During one of the most difficult times in my professional career, Jason not only provided exceptional legal guidance, but equally as important, he provided emotional support that was vital to my family and me.

 Jason ran circles around the “major national law firm” team that was assigned to defend my employer. In fact, Jason made them look silly at times. Jason always advocated my best interests, not his own. 

Jason is not only an exceptional attorney who helped my family to achieve a favorable outcome, but he is a friend. I’ve worked with major law firms throughout my career and when it comes to SOX and employment law matters, there is not a finer, more talented attorney than Jason Zuckerman.”
• “Jason did an exceptional job in quickly understanding the intricacies of my case, grasping not only his field of expertise of employment law, but also the violations of law and SEC Regulations that were central to my dispute. The overall strategy he utilized insured that opposing counsel was challenged and made clear that this case would simply not proceed based on a timetable convenient to them. Jason is thorough, accurate and seemingly working at all hours based on phone calls and correspondence. Fortunately Jason has a very down to earth personality, understands issues readily and can convey in understandable language current “legal” circumstances and probable outcomes. I would easily and thoroughly recommend Jason for issues related to a Sarbanes-Oxley or employment related dispute.”

SOX Whistleblower Protection for SEC Whistleblowers

Protections for SEC Whistleblowers Post-Digital Realty (11-6-2020)

How to File a Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Case

SOX whistleblower cases are initially filed with OSHA.  Complaints can be filed by mail, facsimile, or through an online complaint form.  A whistleblower can also call or visit in person their local OSHA Regional or Area Office to file a complaint.  To prove timely filing, it is important to retain documentation evidencing the filing of the complaint.

SOX Whistleblower Protection Law

18 U.S. Code § 1514A – Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases

(a) Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies.—No company with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l), or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) including any subsidiary or affiliate whose financial information is included in the consolidated financial statements of such company, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c),[1] or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee—

(1) to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information or assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted by—

(A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;

(B) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or

(C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct); or

(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.

(b) Enforcement Action.—

(1) In general.—A person who alleges discharge or other discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c), by—

(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or

(B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy.

(2) Procedure.—

(A) In general.—

An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.

(B) Exception.—

Notification made under section 42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person named in the complaint and to the employer.

(C) Burdens of proof.—

An action brought under paragraph (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.

(D) Statute of limitations.—

An action under paragraph (1) shall be commenced not later than 180 days after the date on which the violation occurs, or after the date on which the employee became aware of the violation.

(E) Jury trial.—

A party to an action brought under paragraph (1)(B) shall be entitled to trial by jury.

(c) Remedies.—

(1) In general.—

An employee prevailing in any action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole.

(2) Compensatory damages.—Relief for any action under paragraph (1) shall include—

(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discrimination;

(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and

(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.

(d) Rights Retained by Employee.—

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any Federal or State law, or under any collective bargaining agreement.

(e) Nonenforceability of Certain Provisions Waiving Rights and Remedies or Requiring Arbitration of Disputes.—

(1) Waiver of rights and remedies.—

The rights and remedies provided for in this section may not be waived by any agreement, policy form, or condition of employment, including by a predispute arbitration agreement.

(2) Predispute arbitration agreements.—

No predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable, if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under this section.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower Retaliation Provision

(a)Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies.—No company with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l), or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) including any subsidiary or affiliate whose financial information is included in the consolidated financial statements of such company, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c),[1] or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee—

(1) to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information or assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted by—

(A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency; (B) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or (C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct); or (2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.

(b)Enforcement Action.—

(1)In general.—A person who alleges discharge or other discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c), by—

(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or (B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy.

(2)Procedure.— (A)In general.— An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.

(B)Exception.— Notification made under section 42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person named in the complaint and to the employer. (C)Burdens of proof.— An action brought under paragraph (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code. (D)Statute of limitations.— An action under paragraph (1) shall be commenced not later than 180 days after the date on which the violation occurs, or after the date on which the employee became aware of the violation. (E)Jury trial.— A party to an action brought under paragraph (1)(B) shall be entitled to trial by jury.

(c)Remedies.—

(1)In general.— An employee prevailing in any action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole.

(2)Compensatory damages.—Relief for any action under paragraph (1) shall include—

(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discrimination; (B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and (C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.(d)Rights Retained by Employee.— Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any Federal or State law, or under any collective bargaining agreement.

(e)Nonenforceability of Certain Provisions Waiving Rights and Remedies or Requiring Arbitration of Disputes.—

(1)Waiver of rights and remedies.—

The rights and remedies provided for in this section may not be waived by any agreement, policy form, or condition of employment, including by a predispute arbitration agreement.

(2)Predispute arbitration agreements.—

No predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable, if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under this section.

Resources About SOX Whistleblower Protection Law

The Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower lawyers at leading whistleblower law firm Zuckerman Law has written extensively about whistleblower protections and is quoted frequently in the media on this topic. A sample of those blog posts and articles appears below:

• Sarbanes Oxley Whistleblower Win Shows Strong Need For Whistleblower Protections
• DOL Adopts Strengthened Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Regulations
• Jury Awards Former Bio-Rad Counsel $11M in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Case
• Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Decision Clarifies Broad Scope of Protected Whistleblowing
• Decision Denying Motion for Summary Judgment Broadly Construes Sarbanes-Oxley Protected Whistleblowing
• Sarbanes-Oxley Protects Disclosures About Inadequate Information Security Controls
• Jury Awards Six Million Dollars to Whistleblower in Sarbanes-Oxley Case
• Sarbanes-Oxley Authorizes Damages for Reputational Harm
• OSHA Orders Bank to Reinstate Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower
• Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Prevails on Appeal
• Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Obtains $2.7M in Front Pay
• SOX Whistleblower Decision Adopts Favorable Pleading Standard for Whistleblowers
• OSHA Orders Wells Fargo to Pay $5.4M to Whistleblower
• District Court Rejects Materiality Requirement for Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Actions
• SARBANES-OXLEY WHISTLEBLOWER CASE CLARIFIES THE BURDEN FOR PLEADING KNOWLEDGE OF PROTECTED WHISTLEBLOWING
• Whistleblowing Fraud Investigator Defeats Motion to Dismiss Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Case
• Third Circuit Decision Highlights Key Procedural Distinctions Between Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Provisions
• Federal Courts Are Adopting the Administrative Review Board’s Broad Interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley Protected Conduct
• Are cybersecurity whistleblowers protected against retaliation?
• Court Rules that Whistleblowers Can Use Confidential Company Documents to Expose Fraud
• Fifth Circuit Holds that “Outing” a Whistleblower is an Adverse Action Under SOX
• Court Rules for In-House Counsel Whistleblower
• Leading SEC Whistleblower Law Firm Featured in Article About Growing Wave of Whistleblower Lawsuits
• Pro Se Sarbanes Oxley Whistleblower Prevails in Jury Trial
• Whistleblower Lawyer Interviewed About Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Provision
• A Wells Fargo whistleblower warned about fake accounts in 2011 — nobody from the government ever spoke with her
• Whistleblower Lawyer Dallas Hammer Quoted About Cybersecurity Whistleblowing
• Tax Notes Quotes Whistleblower Lawyer Zuckerman About SOX Whistleblower Case
• Article Reports on Petition to Strengthen Whistleblower Rights
• Whistleblower Lawyer Zuckerman Quoted About OSHA Whistleblower Investigations
• Whistleblower Lawyer Quoted About Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Development
• Whistleblower Lawyer Jason Zuckerman Quoted About Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection
• Forbes Quotes Whistleblower Attorney Jason Zuckerman About Self-Help Discovery in Whistleblower Litigation
• Federal Courts Are Adopting the Administrative Review Board’s Broad Interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley Protected Conduct
• DOL Clarifies Burden-Shifting Framework For Whistleblowers, Law 360 (October 2016)
• The Evolution Of SOX: A Powerful Remedy For Retaliation, Law 360 (May 2016)
• Whistleblower Protections and Incentives for Auditors and Accountants, Accounting Today (May 2016)
• 2016 Annual Update on the Whistleblower Provisions of SOX, American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law Subcommittee on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (February 2016)
• Sixth Circuit Hands A Landmark Victory To SOX Whistleblowers, Law 360 (June 2015)
• A Year For Whistleblower Rewards And Protections, Law 360 (December 2014)
• Congress Strengthens Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees, ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law (December 2012)
• Whistleblowers: What Protections And Forms of Relief Are Available For Foreign-Based Employees, ABA Section Of International Law Spring 2011 Meeting (March 2011)
• Law 360 Quotes Whistleblower Attorney Jason Zuckerman About Fifth Circuit Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Decision
• Law 360 Quotes Whistleblower Lawyer Jason Zuckerman on Seminal Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Decision
• Whistleblower Attorney Zuckerman Quoted in Article About Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection Decisions
• Law 360 Quotes Whistleblower Lawyer Jason Zuckerman on Seminal Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Decision
• Law360 Quotes Whistleblower Lawyer Jason Zuckerman About Sarbanes-Oxley Causation Standard
• Whistleblower Attorney Jason Zuckerman Quoted in Law360 Article About Whistleblower Self-Help Discovery
• Whistleblower Advocate Jason Zuckerman Quoted in Article About In-House Attorney Whistleblower Lawsuits
• Whistleblower Lawyer Hammer Quoted by Bloomberg About Rebound in Sarbanes Oxley Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
• Whistleblower Lawyer Quoted About Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Development
• Whistleblower Lawyer Interviewed About the Rise of Cybersecurity Whistleblowing

whistleblower_lawyers_012017_infographic

Video Transcript

It seemed to come out of the blue. When David received a surprise visit from his boss, his stomach sank. He knew this couldn’t be good, and he was right. After some small talk to allow the office staff to punch out for the end of the week, David was let go. No notice, no real explanation, except something about downsizing and David being a poor fit for the company. Yet no one else was being laid off, and David had a consistent record of strong performance.

David wasn’t even given time to clear out his office or say goodbye to colleagues. He was told that they’d clean out his desk and leave his personal effects at the front desk for him to pick up at a later time. He managed to grab the picture he kept on his desk on his way out the door. It was the picture that always kept him going during difficult times, and there had been plenty of those as of late. It was that picture of his children that had always led him to remain honest and true to his values at work.

Lately, David was under pressure at work to manipulate earnings to meet targets that would enable management to get large bonuses. David knew that reporting false earnings to the SCC and shareholders violates SCC rules and harms shareholders. Therefore, he refused to acquiesce in his employer’s earnings management scheme.

As a result, management became very hostile to him. He’d been denied a promotion that was rightfully his and he’d suffered alienation and isolation from his senior management and peers who were eager to get large bonuses from this earnings management scheme. He never thought it would come to him losing his job, but he stood his ground and now needed someone to help protect him and his rights.

Despite his loyal service to the company, he found himself out of work and worried about how he would support his family. That’s when he turned to the Zuckerman Law Firm, a Washington D.C. firm that represents whistleblowers nationwide and has substantial experience litigating Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claims. David called them immediately and setup a consultation.

The firm explained to David his legal rights and options and crafted a strategy for David to utilize whistleblower laws to obtain a wide range of remedies, including lost wages, emotional distress damages, and damages for harm to reputation. David also learned from the firm that some whistleblowers laws may provide substantial rewards to whistleblowers. Thanks to the Zuckerman Law Firm, David is well on his way to seeking relief for the retaliation that he suffered.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of whistleblower retaliation, don’t delay. Many whistleblower retaliation laws have short statutes of limitations. Contact Zuckerman Law to learn about your rights. Call 202-262-8959 or visit zuckermanlaw.com.