The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that will determine whether fraud whistleblowers alleging retaliation must prove their employer acted with retaliatory intent.
In oral arguments on Oct. 10 for Murray v. UBS Securities, the court analyzed the difference between cause and intent in this context.
"This case is critically important for all public companies and companies that do business with public companies since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) essentially prevents these companies from discriminating against their employees who engage in certain types of whistleblowing," said Brian Hoffman, an attorney with Holland & Hart in Denver.
"Litigating SOX claims will be more difficult for employers if the court holds they must disprove retaliatory intent as an affirmative defense," said David Baron, an attorney with Seward & Kissel in New York City.
Background
Trevor Murray sued UBS Securities, a broker-dealer based in Weehawken, N.J., and its Swiss parent company, UBS AG, alleging that UBS terminated his employment because he reported alleged fraud. He claimed the company violated the whistleblower protections under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. He later alleged a violation of the retaliation prohibitions in SOX.
Murray worked as a strategist in UBS's mortgage strategy group. He was laid off as part of a reduction in force prompted by the 2008 financial crisis. UBS rehired him in a similar role in 2011, then laid him off again...
New York announced a $4.5 million settlement on Friday with a travel booking company and three of its affiliates following a tax fraud investigation initiated by a whistleblower under the state’s ...