Search Site

Transferring Confidential Data to IRS Earns SOX Protection for Whistleblower

Not everyone can see the truth, but he can be it.

Franz Kafka 

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL, in Vannoy v. Celanese Corporation, recently ruled in favor of a whistleblower who claimed retaliation after taking sensitive information from his employer and giving it to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While the decision indicates the DOL’s intention to offer broad protection, it raises challenges to corporations interested in protecting their data. 

Potential tax fraud 

From September 2004 until May 2005, Matthew Vannoy was a contract employee, hired through Venturi Staffing Resources to assist in reports being prepared for Celanese. Vannoy was hired by Celanese in May 2005 to be the Administrator of its U.S. Bank Visa Card Program. Vannoy’s position required him to produce numerous reports where he revealed significant misstatements of company financial records and major underestimation of tax burdens. Vannoy began notifying superiors of the inaccuracies in 2007. Vannoy hired an attorney and eventually transferred data to the IRS. Two months after learning of Vannoy’s cooperation with the IRS, Celanese terminated Vannoy. 

Defendant’s arguments 

Celanese argued that Vannoy’s taking of Personally Identifiable Information—employees’ Social Security numbers—was unlawful and outside the scope of activity protected by SOX. Celanese also argued that it would have terminated Vannoy even in the absence of the protected activity because of his taking and transferring confidential data. 

The decision 

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Vannoy uncovered alleged accounting discrepancies and that he reasonably believed violated federal securities laws. The ALJ ruled that Vannoy only transferred sensitive data to the IRS for the purpose of supporting his IRS complaints. 

Furthermore, the ALJ held that Vannoy’s protected activity caused his termination. The ALJ directed Celanese to pay $271,000 in back pay, $25,000 in emotional distress, more than $84,000 in front pay and legal fees. 

Significance to employers 

Corporations have a major business interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its employee and customer data. The Vannoy decision serves as a warning to employers that an employee may transfer such sensitive data outside the company for the purpose of filing a whistleblower complaint. 

Before proceeding to file a complaint SOX complaint, it is advisable to consult with an experienced Dallas whistleblower lawyer who is familiar with the challenges of pursuing such a claim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Awards & Honors
Our Office
  • Dallas Office
    4514 Cole Ave
    Dallas, Texas 75205
    Phone: 214-306-8045
    Fax: 469-729-9926
As Seen In
In his new book, "Standing Up to China: How a Whistleblower Risked Everything for His Country," former client & Author, Ashley Yablon, quotes Attorney Steve Kardell about Whistelblower Law.
  • "Steve Kardell was terrific in representing me in some very adversarial discussions with Citigroup and also later represented me in my testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission."  -Richard Bowen, Citigroup Whistleblower

  • "Incredible knowledge of employee related concerns and equally brilliant knowledge of health care regulations, standards of practice. I would recommend this firm to anyone."  -V.B.

  • "Reaching out to Steve Kardell was the best decision I made. His ability to provide immediate insight and direction was very powerful, and a huge relief during a very stressful time period. For anyone struggling with a whistleblower situation, I would highly recommend at least speaking with Steve. After a 10 minute call with him, I had a better understanding of what I was dealing with. Even better, he gave me some immediate hope. In the end Steve did a better job than I thought was possible. Steve was able to get in contact with people in my organization, that I didn’t have access to. Because of his years of experience, he already has contacts in many organizations in Dallas. The entire situation was handled peacefully. I was impressed by his ability to “keep the peace”–rather than creating a battle with the organization. The reason I didn’t reach out to a lawyer initially, was because I thought it would mean an immediate end to any hope of a positive relationship with the company. Steve was able to address my concerns, and in the end I was able to continue to work for them."  -KS

  • "Never thought my career would end like it did after 30 years of service. I was part of the first round of the so called reduction of force. I asked myself how can I be part of this with 30 years of seniority. How did they pick these 90 plus employees? Now, the culture of this organization made you question every decision they made. It wasn’t what you knew it’s was a culture of who you know. Nonetheless, I did not accept their severance package. I immediately starting looking for an attorney who would take on my case. After the initial call to Steve I had hope again. He was open and honest about everything and reassured me he would do his best for me, and he did. I had an awesome outcome. Thanks Steve you’re the best."  -S.S.