We represent victims of reverse discrimination and anti-DEI whistleblowers

Rooting out financial fraud can be extremely difficult. Congress established the Sarbanes-Oxley law to serve as a powerful tool in this effort. The legislation included protection for whistleblowers who reported acts that violated Sarbanes-Oxley provisions, but a narrow interpretation of the statute meant that fired employees faced a high hurdle to qualify for that protection. Now, a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court should shield many more whistleblowers. 

In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC., Trevor Murray alleged he was fired because he complained about pressure to make his reports reflect the company’s business strategies while stating to the SEC that he reached his findings independently. The Court held that employees can establish a violation of whistleblower protection statutes without proving that their employer acted with retaliatory intent. This decision marks a major victory for employees who report wrongdoing.  

Previously, to prevail in a whistleblower retaliation case, employees typically had to demonstrate that their employer’s adverse action was motivated by a desire to punish them for engaging in protected whistleblowing activity. This requirement often presented a significant hurdle for employees, as proving an employer's state of mind can be challenging.

Under the Murray rationale, whistleblowers are subject to much lower burden of proof. To establish a claim, employees now only need to show that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer's decision to take adverse action. This means that if an employee can demonstrate a causal link between their protected activity and the adverse action, they can establish a prima facie case of retaliation.

By easing the legal burden for whistleblowers, the decision promotes transparency, accountability and ethical conduct in the workplace. While this decision should definitely make things easier for employees who call out financial fraud that they notice on the job, it is important to note that the specific facts of each case will still matter. Employers may still raise defenses to challenge the employee's claims and although many other whistleblower protection laws include language similar to that in Sarbanes-Oxley, the decision doesn’t address the different standard used for Occupational Safety and Health claims.

Consulting with an experienced employment attorney is crucial for employees who believe they have been subjected to retaliation for whistleblowing. At Kardell Law Group, we can look at your situation and advise you how the law is currently being applied in cases such as yours.