Search Site
Menu
Whistleblowers Are Taking Their Case to the U.S. Supreme Court

Jackie Lawson and Jonathan Zang believe that the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals misinterpreted the law. They appealed the court’s decision in Lawson v. FMR LLC and filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s whistleblower provision was misread, resulting in the conclusion that the anti-retaliation protections do not reach workers of private contractors for public companies.

The story behind the law

Lawson and Zang worked for Fidelity investment advisory companies that were essentially contractors of the publicly traded company Fidelity Investments. In 2005, they challenged misleading, factually inaccurate statements made by private contractors of Fidelity Investments. Fidelity took adverse actions against Lawson that constituted a constructive termination, and Zang was fired in June 2005. Lawson and Zang filed complaints with an appropriate government agency.

What happened in court?

The plaintiffs sued Fidelity, claiming that they were retaliated against in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s whistleblower provisions. The district court denied Fidelity’s motion to dismiss and raised the legal question of whether the act’s whistleblower provisions extend to employees of private companies that are contractors of public companies. The Court of Appeals said it did not. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals misread the law.

What does the law say?

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act reflects Congress’s response to the famous Enron and WorldCom financial scandals in providing protection to shareholders and the public from fraud and misleading accounting practices. It contains a provision to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. The law says that no company required to file reports to the SEC may take an adverse action against any officer, employee or contractor who reports misconduct.

The definition of “employee”

The plaintiffs argue that the plain language of the act protects employees of contractors and employees of publicly traded companies and point to the Department of Labor’s inclusion of employees of contractors in its whistleblower statute. Fidelity says the intention of the act is to protect only employees of the public company and not employees of the contractor and points to the provision’s headline, “Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies,” as proof that the act offers protection only to direct employees of the public companies.

We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court clearly defines how far the Sarbanes-Oxley ‘s whistleblower provisions extend. If you have questions about blowing the whistle, call a Dallas whistleblower attorney.

Leave a Reply

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

Honors
Our Office
  • Dallas Office
    4514 Cole Ave
    #600
    Dallas, Texas 75205
    Phone: 214-306-8045
    Fax: 469-729-9926
Testimonials
  • "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.

FOLLOW US
Facebook Twitter Linkedin RSS Feed JD Supra