Want this news delivered to your inbox? Click here to subscribe and receive updates.
Looking for Lawrence & Bundy making news?
Click to view our most recent media coverage.
Click to view our most recent media coverage.
Yesterday, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, the Supreme Court unanimously held that whistleblowers pursuing claims under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (SOX) do not need to prove retaliatory intent to prevail. The decision resolves a federal circuit court split of authority. The United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in 2010) and for the Fifth Circuit (in 2014) had held that retaliatory intent was not an element of a SOX anti-retaliation claim. In 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, and its decision was the subject of yesterday’s case. What happened in Murray?
Trevor Murray worked as a strategist for UBS Securities, LLC (UBS), a financial services provider. He researched and created reports about commercial mortgage-back securities products, services, and transactions. Murray had to certify to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that his reports were independently produced and accurately reflected his views. Murray twice told his supervisor that individuals on the trading desk were pressuring him to be more supportive of their business strategies and had asked to see his work before he published it. Murray explained that he thought these efforts to skew his research were unethical and illegal. His supervisor advised him not to alienate his internal clients and to write what they wanted. His supervisor then sent an email recommending that the Company terminate Murray or move him to a role where he did not have SEC certification responsibilities. After being terminated, Murray brought a SOX whistleblower retaliation claim against UBS and was awarded $2.77 million at trial. UBS appealed, and the Second Circuit held that the lower court should have instructed the jury that retaliatory intent was an element of the claim. The Supreme Court’s Ruling In rejecting the Second Circuit’s conclusion that a plaintiff must show retaliatory intent, the Court examined the statute's text. Under SOX’s anti-retaliation provision, an employer may not “discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of” protected activity. The Court highlighted that the statute does not reference retaliatory intent and rejected the argument that the word “discriminate” as used in the statute requires retaliatory intent. The Court explained that “discriminate” means treating someone worse based on a protected characteristic. Moreover, the Court held that a retaliatory intent requirement places a heavier burden on the plaintiff than the statute’s mandatory burdenshifting framework. Under that framework, the plaintiff needs to show only that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action. Then, the employer has the burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same action regardless of the protected activity. Thus, “the only intent [the statute] requires is the intent to take some adverse employment action against the whistleblowing employee ‘because of’ his protected whistleblowing activity.” Looking Forward
Comments are closed.
|
We contribute to the legal field by sharing our experience and insights in the form of articles and presentations designed to improve your way of doing business. You may search by category below, or contact us if you are interested in a field of study not listed here. Categories
All
|