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
SOX Whistleblower Decisions
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…
Illinois Federal Court Grants Motion to Dismiss SOX Whistleblower Claim
On February 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted a defendant-employer’s motion to dismiss a SOX whistleblower retaliation claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead that he engaged in protected activity because his alleged attempt to raise safety concerns did not plausibly…
Ohio District Court Grants Employer Summary Judgment on SOX Whistleblower Claims
On February 15, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted a defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment on SOX whistleblower retaliation claims, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements of a SOX claim, and that the company demonstrated that it would have discharged her…
Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Untimely SOX Whistleblower Claims
On January 4, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a former bank executive’s whistleblower retaliation claims, holding that two procedural errors doomed his case: he sued before exhausting his administrative remedies; and then he belatedly filed an administrative complaint after the statute of limitations had run. Jaludi v. Citigroup…
DC Circuit: SOX’s Anti-Retaliation Provision Does Not Apply Extraterritorially
By Pinchos Goldberg & Ariel Brotman on
As we previously reported, on February 13, 2020, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Department of Labor (DOL) dismissed a former in-house attorney’s whistleblower claims because he worked entirely outside of the United States. On December 23, 2022, the D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed, holding that SOX’s anti-retaliation provision…
Pennsylvania District Court Grants Employer Summary Judgment on Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
On December 6, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment on whistleblower retaliation claims brought under SOX and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”). It held that the plaintiff could not prove that her alleged complaints of…
OSHA Orders Company to Reinstate Whistleblowers and Orders Payment of Over $800k for Purported SOX Violations
On October 7, 2022, OSHA announced that it had ordered ExxonMobil Corp. to immediately rehire two computational scientists who alleged that they were fired in retaliation for leaking to the media their concerns about improper conduct by the company. In addition to reinstatement, the former employees were also awarded over…
Second Circuit: SOX Whistleblower Claims Require Retaliatory Intent
By Pinchos Goldberg & Alisha Bruce on
On August 5, 2022, the Second Circuit overturned a nearly $1 million jury award granted to a former employee of UBS Securities LLC (“UBS”). The Court held that the judge’s instruction to the jury—that Plaintiff was “not required to prove that his protected activity was the primary motivating factor in…
First Circuit: FCPA is not a “Rule or Regulation of the SEC” Under SOX Whistleblower Provision
On July 13, 2022, the First Circuit reversed a denial of summary judgment, finding plaintiff could not satisfy his burden of showing he engaged in protected activity under the SOX whistleblower protection provision. Baker v. Smith & Wesson, No. 21-2019 (1st Cir. 2022). The decision affirms that protected activity…