On behalf of the Employers Association of New Jersey (“EANJ”), Proskauer attorneys Mark Saloman, Daniel Saperstein, Allana Grinshteyn, and Nicholas Tamburri submitted an amicus brief on an important whistleblowing issue pending before New Jersey’s Supreme Court.
Video Interview: Proskauer’s Pearlman Comments on Implications of First Supreme Court SOX Whistleblower Decision
In a 
recent VIDEO INTERVIEW, Darla Stuckey of the Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals met with Steven J. Pearlman, co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblower & Retaliation Group, to discuss the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to extend whistleblower protection under the SOX whistleblower provision
Fifth Circuit Finds No Protected Activity under SOX, Mum on Extraterritoriality
In Villanueva v. United States Department of Labor, No. 12-60122, 2014 WL 550817 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2014), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the petitioner had not engaged in protected activity under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) because he “blew the whistle” on alleged violations of Colombiantax law, not one of the six categories of U.S. law enumerated in the statute. This blog post summarizes the Court’s holding and analyzes the implications for employers.
Trends In N.J. Whistleblowing And Retaliation Law – 2013 Roundup
2013 was a busy year for whistleblowing and retaliation law in New Jersey. This blog post summarizes noteworthy statutory and judicial developments for employers to consider in the new year.
S.D.N.Y. Dismisses SOX Whistleblower Case, Applying Strict Protected Activity Standard And Finding No Causation
On December 12, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted an employer summary judgment on a long-running SOX whistleblower claim. Sharkey v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 10-cv-3824 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2013). The court ruled that (i) Plaintiff Jennifer Sharkey (Plaintiff) had not engaged in protected activity because her complaints did not “definitively and specifically” relate to any category of misconduct set forth in Section 806 of SOX, and (ii) her complaints did not contribute to the decision to terminate her employment, rejecting Plaintiff’s reliance on temporal proximity.
Major Media Outlets Quote Lloyd Chinn On Sox Whistleblower Case Before Supreme Court
In a recent Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) article (subscription required), Lloyd Chinn, Co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblower & Retaliation Group, commented on Lawson v. FMR LLC, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning whether Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) protects an employee of a privately held contractor or subcontractor of a public company. Chinn, who attended Tuesday’s oral argument, told the WSJ that the justices appeared to be virtually unanimous in expressing concerns “around what limitations there should be” to the application of Section 806.
Another Whistleblower Bounty From The SEC
On October 30, 2013, the SEC announced that it rendered a $150K award to an anonymous whistleblower whose tips allegedly helped thwart a scheme to defraud investors (click here for the Order). The bounty equals 30% of the proceeds the SEC collected in the enforcement action—the maximum percentage permitted.
In
SDNY Says No Extraterritorial Application For Dodd-Frank Anti-Retaliation Provision
In Liu v. Siemens A.G., No. 13 Civ. 317 (WHP), slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the anti-retaliation protections found in Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 do not apply extraterritorially. This blog posting summarizes the Court’s decision and analyzes the impact for multinational employers.
New Jersey Pay Equity Measure Says No Reprisals Against Employees Requesting Information About Co-Workers
On August 28, 2013, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed A-2648 to add a new non-retaliation pay equity measure to the Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) (hereinafter, the “amendment” or “law”). The amendment prohibits an employer from retaliating against any employee who requests information concerning the job title, occupational category, rate of compensation (including benefits), gender, race, ethnicity, military status, or national origin of any other employee or former employee, provided that the purpose of the request is to investigate potential discriminatory treatment, or take legal action for discriminatory treatment, concerning pay, compensation, bonuses, or other compensation (hereinafter, “protected information”). The amendment makes it clear that an employer is not required to release protected information in response to an employee’s request, but only prohibits reprisals against any employee who makes such a request.
Law360 Quotes Steve Pearlman on Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Title VII Retaliation Standard
In a Law360 article (subscription required), Steven J. Pearlman, co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblower & Retaliation Group, recently commented on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, No. 12-484 (June 24, 2013), adopting a “but-for” causation standard for Title VII