whistleblower

Subscribe to whistleblower via RSS

On January 22, 2018, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict awarding approximately $1.5 million in damages to a radiation oncologist after finding that she had been constructively and wrongfully terminated in violation of Missouri law (specifically, “Missouri public policy”) in retaliation for reporting alleged instances of substandard…

Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a terminated CEO’s complaints about his board of directors’ managerial decisions did not qualify as protected whistleblowing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) nor under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 (“DFA”).  Verfuerth v. Orion Energy Sys., Inc., No. 16-3502, 2018 WL 359814 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2018).

Background.  Plaintiff was the founder and former CEO of a company that specializes in energy-efficient lighting.  In November 2012, following a series of disputes between Plaintiff and the company’s board of directors, Plaintiff was terminated for incurable cause.  A year and a half after his termination, Plaintiff brought a lawsuit that alleged that he was retaliated against, in violation of SOX and DFA, for his complaints to various board members about the company’s business practices.  Practices about which Plaintiff alleged to have complained included attorney over-billing, intellectual property disputes, conflicts of interest, and violations of internal company protocol.  The Company moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that Plaintiff’s complaints did not qualify as whistleblowing entitled to protection from adverse employment actions.

Rulings.  Chief Judge Griesbach granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s SOX and DFA claims.  Chief Judge Griesbach held (1) that SOX protects complaints about securities fraud, not “run-of-the-mill corporate problems,” which is what he believed Plaintiff raised here, and (2) that Plaintiff’s complaints to various board members about what he thought they should be doing did not amount to whistleblowing, because “[s]imply telling a person he might be committing fraud is not whistleblowing” and “airing concerns is not whistleblowing.”  Verfuerth v. Orion Energy Sys., Inc., No. 14-CV-352, 2016 WL 4507317 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 25, 2016).

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, holding that “[a]n executive who advises board members to disclose a fact that the board already knows about has not ‘provide[d] information’ about fraud.  At most, he has provided an opinion.”  Verfuerth­ No. 16-3502, 2018 WL 359814 at *4.  The Court emphasized that nothing in SOX, or any other federal statute, prevents a company from firing its executives over differences of opinion.

On October 17, 2017, the Tenth Circuit overturned the ARB’s decision in favor of complainant for want of protected activity under SOX.  Dietz v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., No. 16-9529 (Oct. 17, 2017).  This decision rolled back the ARB’s expansive determination that a company violated federal mail and wire fraud laws by implementing a mandatory bonus plan that failed to comply with state wage payment laws.

Background.  Complainant worked for another entity before it was acquired by the Company.  Offer letters were sent to some of the prior company’s employees, including Complainant, which included compensation information.  The offer letters, however, omitted the fact that some of the employees would be subject to an alternative compensation plan (the “Design Bonus Plan”).  The Design Bonus Plan involved a mandatory wage deduction, which would later be recuperated based on the performance of the affected employees’ projects.  The Company did not start making the deductions until approximately nine months after the prior company’s employees started working for the Company.  Training sessions about the Design Bonus Plan were also offered.  In April 2013, after one of the training sessions, Complainant emailed his supervisor to discuss his concerns about the legality of the Design Bonus Plan and also discussed this with the General Counsel.   Additionally, Complainant complained that the Design Bonus Plan took employees by surprise.  Shortly thereafter, the Company disciplined Complainant and allegedly required him to write memos regarding his alleged errors.  Two months later, Complainant informed the Company that he intended to resign.  Instead of beginning the Company’s turnaround process (designed to retain employees), he was scheduled to attend a meeting two days later.

The Southern District of Florida recently denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a former employee’s Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank whistleblower retaliation claims, finding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that she had an objectively reasonable belief regarding alleged securities violations.  Thomas v. Tyco Int’l Mgmt. Co., LLC, No. 16-cv-80501 (Mar. 31, 2017).  This case is noteworthy because it takes an expansive view of the scope of protected activity under SOX with respect to complaints involving internal controls and data security.

Background.  Plaintiff was a former Manager of Financial Reporting for the Company.  She allegedly learned during her employment that an applicant for a manager position misrepresented her educational qualifications in her resume.  Additionally, she allegedly believed that the applicant did not have sufficient training in generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).  According to her complaint, despite raising these concerns with her direct supervisor, the Company hired the applicant for the new manager position.  Plaintiff claimed that the new manager was responsible for reporting $4 billion per year to the Company’s headquarters and ultimately to the SEC.  Plaintiff also allegedly began doubting the reliability of a new monthly “tie-out” process the Company used to ensure that the financial data in the Company’s ledger system was consistent with the consolidated financial data reported to the SEC.  In December 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the internal ombudsman regarding the new manager’s credentials and the tie-out process.  The ombudsman found no wrongdoing.  In March 2014, Plaintiff filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint with OSHA.  In May 2014, her employment was terminated on the grounds that she allegedly improperly accessed another employee’s records.

The Northern District of New York recently denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a former employee’s Dodd-Frank whistleblower retaliation claim, finding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that he had an objectively reasonable belief with respect to alleged securities violations and causation.  McManus v. Tetra Tech Construction, Inc., No. 16-cv-894 (May 11, 2017).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a Dodd-Frank whistleblower retaliation claim brought by an ex-project manager, finding that Plaintiff failed to allege that her protected activity involved any disclosures to the SEC.  Smith v. Raytheon Co., No. 17-cv-00438 (E.D. Va. Aug. 11, 2017).

On July 27, 2017, the SEC announced that it was paying a $1.7 million bounty award to a whistleblower, even though the whistleblower: (1) had some culpability in the fraud; (2) unreasonably delayed reporting the fraud; and (3) failed to comply with a Dodd-Frank rule requiring whistleblowers to submit inside information in writing in certain circumstances. The SEC did not provide the identity of the whistleblower or the company at issue.

On July 25, 2017, the Third Circuit allowed a plaintiff who was an in-house attorney to proceed with a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) based on its conclusion that CEPA protects attorneys from being discharged for refusing to violate Rules of Professional Conduct. Trzaska v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13381 (3d Cir. July 25, 2017).

Background. Plaintiff was the former head of a regional patent team at the Company. As an attorney, he was bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct of both Pennsylvania (where he was admitted to practice law) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Plaintiff oversaw the process by which the Company invented and applied for patents on products. He alleged that the Company had an annual minimum quota for patents and that with fewer invention disclosures being submitted to the patent team for vetting, his team could only improve their chances of reaching the quota by filing frivolous patent applications. Plaintiff allegedly complained of this to his superiors, noting that the filing of frivolous or bad-faith patent applications violates the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. Plaintiff further alleged that the Company responded by offering him the choice of severance or “go[ing] back to [his] office and get back to work.” His employment was subsequently terminated.