The US Supreme Court considered reinstating a $900,000 (CHF810,000) jury verdict won by a fired UBS Group research strategist in a case that could make it easier for whistleblowers to win suits claiming retaliation under a federal investor-protection law.
October 11, 2023 - 16:33 3 minutes
UBS contends that federal law requires whistleblowers to prove they were the victims of intentional retaliation. But that argument drew scepticism from several justices, including Neil Gorsuch, who questioned whether it could be squared with the language of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
“I don’t see ‘retaliation’ in the statute,” Gorsuch told UBS’s lawyer, Eugene Scalia. “You’re asking me to read things into a statute that aren’t there.”
Employees have filed more than 750 Sarbanes-Oxley claims with the Labor Department over the past six years. The law was enacted following the corporate fraud that toppled Enron and WorldCom.
+Whistleblowers to get new legal guidelines
The case centres on Trevor Murray, who claims he was fired for refusing to skew his reports to help the company’s business strategies. A federal appeals court set aside a verdict in Murray’s favour, saying he should have been required to prove that UBS intentionally retaliated against him.
Murray’s lawyer, Easha Anand, said Sarbanes-Oxley requires employees to show only that their protected activity was a “contributing factor” to a decision to fire or demote them. After that, Anand said, it’s up...
by Lowell Here are a few international, national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Tuesday, April 21. Clean energy generation exceeded rise in global electricity demand i...