News & Analysis as of

Anti-Retaliation Provisions Employer Liability Issues Retaliation

Fisher Phillips

End of NY Legislative Session Leaves Employers Watching Key Workplace Bills

Fisher Phillips on

New York’s two-year 2025-2026 legislative session hit its midpoint in June, with lawmakers wrapping up the first year by passing a slew of workplace-related bills that now await action from Governor Hochul. As federal labor...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Workplace Investigation Protocols: One-on-One with Greg Keating

Epstein Becker & Green on

For business leaders and in-house counsel, establishing clear investigation protocols is vital for protecting corporate integrity and managing risks related to whistleblowing and retaliation. Epstein Becker Green (EBG)...more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

[Webinar] Addressing Employee Complaints: Retaliation and Whistleblower Complaints with the EEOC, OSHA, and MSHA - October 1st,...

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

Over the past several years, employers have seen a significant uptick in retaliation claims filed by employees and investigated by federal agencies. For example, in 2010, only approx. 30% of all charges filed with the EEOC...more

Houston Harbaugh, P.C.

SCOTUS: Whistleblowers need not prove retaliatory intent under Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Houston Harbaugh, P.C. on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that proving an employer’s retaliatory intent is not required for whistleblowers seeking protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 445 (2024),...more

Bodman

Michigan Supreme Court Expands Retaliation Liability Under Michigan’s Civil Rights Act

Bodman on

The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case of Miller v. Department of Corrections expands the scope of retaliation claims under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). This decision could have important...more

Poyner Spruill LLP

Whistleblower Risks: United States Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof

Poyner Spruill LLP on

In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, holding that whistleblowers asserting retaliation claims under Sarbanes-Oxley must prove protected activity was a contributing factor...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

United States Supreme Court Endorses Low Burden of Proof for Whistleblowers

In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U. S. ____, 2024 WL 478566 (2024), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be...more

Goulston & Storrs PC

SCOTUS Issues Decision with Significant Implications for Future Whistleblower Cases

Goulston & Storrs PC on

On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. ___(2024), a case involving a former UBS employee’s claim that he was terminated for making an internal report...more

BakerHostetler

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC - Whistleblower Retaliation Without Need to Prove Retaliatory Intent

BakerHostetler on

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that employers can violate whistleblower protection statutes without evidence establishing retaliatory...more

The Volkov Law Group

Supreme Court’s Unanimous Decision Provides Important Protections for Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers

The Volkov Law Group on

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the case, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al. (February 8, 2024).  The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms an...more

Jones Day

Supreme Court Holds Proof of Retaliatory Intent Not Required for Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Claims

Jones Day on

The Background: In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC., et al. ("Murray") that an employee suing his employer under the anti-retaliation provisions of...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Supreme Court Says Whistleblowers Do Not Need to Prove Retaliatory Intent

Last week in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an employee who sued his former employer for retaliatory termination did not need to prove a retaliatory intent behind the decision. Murray v. UBS...more

Morgan Lewis

Nuclear Whistleblower Cases: Supreme Court’s Sox Whistleblower Rationale Will Likely Be Applied

Morgan Lewis on

The US Supreme Court ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC that whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) need not prove retaliatory intent. This ruling is consistent with current precedent for Energy Reorganization...more

Miller Nash LLP

(We Can’t Have No) Retaliation: Part Two—Important Lessons for Employers Resulting from the SCOTUS Whistleblower Decision

Miller Nash LLP on

Outlined in part one of our series—SCOTUS Clarifies Whistleblower Claims Standard under Sarbanes Oxley—the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal court of appeals decision, resolving a recent federal appeals court split...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

The US Supreme Court Rules in Murray v. UBS That SOX Whistleblowers Do Not Need To Prove Retaliatory Intent

On Feb. 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that plaintiffs bringing whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 do not need to prove...more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Supreme Court Confirms Retaliatory Intent Is Irrelevant in Proving SOX Retaliation

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

On February 8, 2024, in its Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC1 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower pursuing a claim for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to...more

Bricker Graydon LLP

Landmark Ruling Redefines Whistleblower Protection Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Bricker Graydon LLP on

On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion confirming that a whistleblower does not need to show their employer’s actions were made with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

No retaliatory intent required - “contributing factor” sufficient to prevail in SOX whistleblower claim

On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, issued a decision that expands the ability of whistleblowers to seek anti-retaliation protections under federal whistleblower laws....more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Are They Qualified? 11th Circuit Further Defines ADA Category

Does the fact that an individual is disabled automatically make him a “qualified individual with a disability” under Title I of the ADA? In Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the Eleventh Circuit said no....more

Fisher Phillips

5 Tips to Avoid Workplace Retaliation Claims

Fisher Phillips on

Employers know how important it is to comply with workplace anti-discrimination laws – but equally important is ensuring that employees who complain about perceived discrimination are not retaliated against for doing so, even...more

NAVEX

Unpacking the Term “Whistleblower”

NAVEX on

The term whistleblower carries a lot of baggage – but you wouldn’t know this from its dictionary definition. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines a whistleblower as “one who reveals something covert or informs against...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Issue Spotting Is Not Whistleblowing

Epstein Becker & Green on

Laws protecting whistleblowers generally afford anti-retaliation protections when employees “step out of their role” to report discrimination and dangerous or illegal activity, but not to employees when they are performing...more

NAVEX

Expanded Japanese Whistleblowing Rules Reach Small & Medium Business

NAVEX on

Expanded Japanese whistleblowing rules are among the latest to come into effect as part of a broad trend of increasing regulatory requirements for incident reporting across the globe. Previously in effect for large...more

Fisher Phillips

California Employers Face Challenges Under New Law Prohibiting Retaliation During “Emergency Conditions”

Fisher Phillips on

California employers will soon be prohibited from taking adverse action against employees who refuse to report to a workplace in an “emergency condition,” according to a bill Governor Newsom signed into law on September 29....more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The Second Circuit Creates a Circuit Split on Whistleblower Claim Standards

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In a decision with potentially wide-ranging implications for federal whistleblower protection law, the Second Circuit has held that plaintiffs who allege they were punished by their employers for whistleblowing activity, and...more

105 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide