The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case that could expand workers' retaliation protections under the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The case will examine whether a whistleblower must prove an employer acted with retaliatory intent or whether the employer has the burden to show it did not intend to retaliate.
Background
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act protects whistleblowers who report financial wrongdoing at publicly traded companies.
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 Sarbanes-Oxley.
Murray worked as a strategist in UBS's mortgage strategy group, focused mostly on commercial mortgage-backed securities. 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 in 2012, stating it was part of another reduction in force.
Murray claimed he was targeted for whistleblowing to his supervisors about illegal efforts by colleagues to skew or sway his independent research analysis. UBS said Murray did not qualify as a whistleblower under the Dodd-Frank Act because he didn't allege that he reported the misconduct to the U.S....
Over the last year, beyond traditional healthcare and federal procurement matters, the government has pursued federal False Claims Act (FCA) investigations and enforcement across high-risk areas, i...