The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 8, 2024, strengthening a whistleblower’s path in seeking to invoke the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The protections prohibit covered employers from retaliating against employees because of protected whistleblowing activities. The Court made the unanimous ruling in the case of Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC (22-660).
In the case, Trevor Murray was employed as a research strategist at securities firm UBS and claimed he was improperly pressured by superiors to skew his reports to be more supportive of their business strategies. Murray reported the conduct to his direct supervisor, asserting that it was unethical and illegal. Ultimately, Murray was fired from the company. Murray claimed that the termination of his employment violated Sarbanes-Oxley because he was fired in response to his internal reporting about fraud on shareholders. Due to his firing, Murray brought a suit against UBS. A federal appeals court held that Murray was required to prove retaliatory intent by UBS. The Supreme Court then took the case up to decide whether proving retaliatory intent was required.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that “a whistleblower who invokes protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that their employer acted with retaliatory intent.” Until this ruling, there was disagreement about whether an employee would need to prove retaliatory intent.
With the decision in this case, the Supreme Court has made it clear that proving retaliatory intent is not a requirement, thus removing an obstacle in the road for whistleblowers in receiving protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Employers Council can assist Consulting and Enterprise members with various employment law needs. Contact us at info@employerscouncil.org.
#WhistleblowerProtection