On September 25, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board’s rejection of an employee’s Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) retaliation claim, holding the employee did not engage in protected activity because he failed to establish that he had an objective, reasonable belief that the employer engaged in conduct that violated SOX.  Ronnie v. Office Depot, LLC, No. 20-14214.

Background

Petitioner was a senior financial analyst responsible for, among other things, ensuring data integrity.  He identified two potential accounting errors that he claimed signaled securities fraud relating to an internal metric over which he had responsibility, “Sales Lift,” which was designed to quantify the cost-reduction benefit of closing redundant Office Depot stores.  Petitioner reported both errors to his supervisors, fixed the first issue, and recommended his supervisors correct the second issue immediately.  They stated, however, that they would not correct the second issue without understanding its root cause and asked Petitioner to investigate.

After he reported the errors, Petitioner alleged that his supervisor treated him differently and he emailed human resources to report alleged retaliation.  Although Petitioner was asked multiple times to investigate and report the cause of the second issue, the record reflected that over a month passed without him identifying the cause.  His supervisor issued him a final warning for the failure to determine the cause and he was ultimately terminated for that reason. 

After the Occupational Safety and Health Administration dismissed Petitioner’s complaint, an administrative law judge granted summary judgment to the employer on the basis that Petitioner failed to establish an objectively reasonable belief that any of the statutes or rules enumerated in SOX were violated.  After the Administrative Review Board affirmed that decision, Petitioner petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review.

Ruling

The court denied the petition, explaining that the key issue was what evidence a SOX plaintiff must present to establish they “reasonably believed” their employer violated a rule or regulation identified by SOX.  The court surveyed other federal appellate courts to have addressed this question, and followed the Second and Fourth Circuits in adopting a “totality of the circumstances test,” which requires a plaintiff to make some showing of scienter, materiality, reliance, or loss in order to enjoy SOX protection.  Following inter alia Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214, 221 n.6 (2d Cir. 2014) (see our post on Nielsen here).  A SOX plaintiff therefore must put forth sufficient information about the alleged wrongful conduct to show that a reasonable person in their position would believe the wrongdoing amounted to a SOX violation.  Although SOX plaintiffs need not articulate the specific provision of SOX they allege the employer violated, the court cautioned that mere speculation or suspicion is insufficient to establish reasonable belief.  This approach contrasts with that of the Third and Sixth Circuits, which do not require SOX plaintiffs to show that they had an objectively reasonable belief of wrongdoing.

After reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the court held Petitioner failed to set forth sufficient evidence to support an inference that a reasonable person in his position would find his employer’s conduct violated SOX.  The court found that Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish scienter, as he conceded in his deposition that he was not claiming the employer intentionally made the error.  The court also found Petitioner failed to identify the materiality of the alleged data error.

Implications

This decision is valuable precedent for employers facing claims within the Second Circuit that turn on whether a plaintiff had a “reasonable belief” that their employer violated SOX.  The Eleventh Circuit has now joined the Second and Fourth Circuits in adopting the totality of the circumstances test, which is a more rigorous standard than that followed by the Third and Sixth Circuits.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Steven J. Pearlman Steven J. Pearlman

Steven J. Pearlman is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, where he is Head of the Restrictive Covenants, Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition Group and Co-Head of the Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group.

Employment, Whistleblower, Restrictive Covenant and Trade Secret Practice.

Steven J. Pearlman is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, where he is Head of the Restrictive Covenants, Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition Group and Co-Head of the Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group.

Employment, Whistleblower, Restrictive Covenant and Trade Secret Practice. Steven’s national practice focuses on defending companies in federal and state courts and arbitration against claims of: discrimination, retaliation and harassment, including claims brought by high-level executives; whistleblower retaliation; restrictive covenant violations; theft of trade secrets; and wage-and-hour violations (including class, collective and PAGA actions).

Illustrating his versatility, Steven has successfully handled bench and jury trials in multiple jurisdictions (e.g., Illinois, California, Florida and Texas); defended one of the largest Illinois-only class actions in the history of the federal courts in Chicago; and prevailed following his oral arguments before the Seventh Circuit and state appellate courts. Steven brings his litigation experience to bear in counseling clients to minimize risk and avoid or prepare for success in litigation.

Investigations. Reporting to boards of directors, their audit committees, CEOs and in-house counsel, Steven conducts sensitive investigations and has testified in federal court. His investigations have involved complaints of sexual harassment involving C-suite officers; systemic violations of employment laws and company policies; and fraud, compliance failures and unethical conduct.

Thought Leadership and Accolades. Steven was named Lawyer of the Year for Chicago Labor & Employment Litigation in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. He was also named as One of the Top 10 Impactful Labor & Employment Lawyers in Illinois for 2023 by Business Today. He is a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. Chambers describes Steven as an “outstanding lawyer” who is “very sharp and very responsive,” a “strong advocate,” and an “expert in his field.” Chambers also reports that “He is someone who can navigate the twists and turns of litigation without difficulty. Steven is great with brief-writing, crafting arguments, and making sure the client is always happy.”

Steven was 1 of 12 individuals selected by Compliance Week as a “Top Mind.” Earlier in his career, he was 1 of 5 U.S. lawyers selected by Law360 as a “Rising Star Under 40” in the area of employment law and 1 of “40 Illinois Attorneys Under Forty to Watch” selected by Law Bulletin Publishing Company. Steven is a Burton Award Winner (U.S. Library of Congress) for “Distinguished Legal Writing.”

Steven was appointed to Law360’s Employment Editorial Advisory Board and selected as a Contributor to Forbes.com. He has appeared on Bloomberg News (television and radio) and Yahoo! Finance, and is often quoted in leading publications such as The Wall Street Journal.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has engaged Steven to serve as lead counsel on amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts of appeal. He was appointed to serve as a Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Illinois in employment litigation matters. He has presented with the Solicitor of the DOL, the Acting Chair of the EEOC, an EEOC Commissioner, Legal Counsel to the EEOC, and heads of the SEC, CFTC and OSHA whistleblower programs. He is also a member of the Sedona Conference, focusing on trade secret matters.

In 2024, Steven received the Excellence in Pro Bono Service Award from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.