Photo of Hayden F. Bashinski

Hayden F. Bashinski earned his J.D. cum laude from the Cumberland School of Law, Samford University, where he was the Student Materials Editor for the Cumberland Law Review. Prior to attending law school, Hayden attended the University of Mississippi, and spent time studying abroad at the London School of Economics.

Hayden focuses his practice on labor and employment law matters. He has experience defending clients in matters pending before administrative personnel boards and agencies, the AAA, JAMS, FINRA, and state and federal courts, including single-plaintiff lawsuits and class and collective actions. In addition to his litigation practice, Hayden regularly advises clients regarding employee policies and personnel decisions. Hayden also assists clients in conducting workplace investigations related to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice announced on January 29, 2026 that it had rewarded $1,000,000.00 to an anonymous whistleblower for their report of a bid rigging scheme in violation of the Sherman Act and 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and which resulted in a deferred prosecution agreement that

On September 23, 2025, in Park v. Shinhan Bank America, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed whistleblower retaliation claims brought by four former compliance officers of Shinhan Bank America (“SHBA”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). No. 22-CV-10331 (VSB). The claims arose under the Anti-Money

On September 17, 2025, in Prkic v. Sezzle, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed whistleblower retaliation claims under both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) and the Dodd-Frank Act (“Dodd-Frank”) where the plaintiff failed to: (i) submit her SOX claim to OSHA; and, (ii) provide information

In Jefferson v. Science Apps. Int’l Corp., et al.,[1] the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation claim brought under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX” or the “Act”), holding, in line with courts across the country, that the statute does

On March 25, 2025, in Smith v. Coupang,[1] the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Coupang, Inc.’s motion to dismiss its former employee’s SOX and state law whistleblower claims despite the plaintiff working in South Korea for a South Korean subsidiary of a

On March 20, 2025, in Zornoza v. Terraform Global Inc. et al, No. 818-cv-02523 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2025), a former executive of two SunEdison subsidiaries secured a $34.5 million settlement over his SOX whistleblower retaliation claims.

Background

Carlos Domenech Zornoza (the “Executive”), the former President and CEO of

On June 7, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, relying on recent ARB decisions, held that a plaintiff who lived and worked for a Canadian subsidiary of a US company could not avail himself to the anti-retaliation provisions of SOX and the Dodd-Frank Act.