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
SOX Whistleblower Decisions
DC District Court Dismisses SOX Whistleblower Retaliation Claim Where Plaintiff Was Employed Abroad And His Employment Contract Was Not Governed By U.S. Law
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…
Washington Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss SOX Whistleblower Claim Despite Plaintiff Working Abroad
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…
Third Circuit Refuses to Enforce Preliminary Reinstatement Order Issued By OSHA
On October 15, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Third Circuit declined to enforce a preliminary reinstatement order issued by OSHA in favor of two purported whistleblowers under SOX, holding that the former employees lost Article III standing after they abandoned the administrative process to instead challenge their terminations…
Texas District Court Grants Summary Judgment on SOX Whistleblower Counterclaim
On August 6, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted an employer’s motion for summary judgment on a SOX whistleblower retaliation counterclaim, holding that the former employee failed to establish any of the elements of the claim and that the company would have taken the…
CA District Court Upholds $1.5 Million Jury Verdict and Awards $2.4 Million for Attorneys’ Fees in Long-Running SOX Whistleblower Lawsuit
On September 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued two separate orders in a long-running SOX whistleblower lawsuit. Following a jury trial, the court upheld the jury’s $1.5 million damages award and awarded the plaintiff $2.4 million in attorneys’ fees. Erhart v. BofI…
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Rejection of Employee’s SOX Claim for Lack of Protected Activity
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…
CA District Court: Insurance Policy Covering Securities Claims May Extend to SOX Whistleblower Claims
A recent California district court addressed the question of whether, for insurance coverage purposes, a SOX whistleblower claim is a “securities claim,” and answered that question in the affirmative. Skye Bioscience v. PartnerRe Ireland Insurance DAC, No. 23-cv-01218.
Section 1514A of SOX provides a cause of action for employees…
Illinois Federal Court Grants Employer Summary Judgment on Several Types of Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
On May 5, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment on whistleblower retaliation claims, holding that the company demonstrated that it would have terminated Plaintiff’s employment even in the absence of any alleged protected activity due to his refusal…
District of NJ: Federal Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Enforce Preliminary Reinstatement Orders Under SOX
On April 19, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendant-employer’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking court enforcement of a preliminary reinstatement order after determining that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 22-cv-7418.
Background…