10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending July 19, 2025
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 55 – The From Worse to Worser Edition
Daily Compliance News: July 18, 2025, The Don’t Alter Docs Edition
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
When DEI Meets the FCA: What Employers Need to Know About the DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative
FCPA Compliance Report: Stay the Course: Ellen Lafferty on Navigating Anti-Corruption Compliance in 2025
Adventures in Compliance: The Novels – The Hound of the Baskervilles, Introduction and Compliance Lessons Learned
Compliance into the Weeds: Boeing’s New Safety Initiatives and Compliance Reforms
Upping Your Game: Crowd - Sourcing Risk Management Intelligence with AI
10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending June 21, 2025
False Claims Act Insights - Will Recent Leadership Changes Lead to FCA Enforcement Policy Changes?
All Things Investigations: Navigating New DOJ Directives - Declinations, Cooperation, and Whistleblower Programs with Mike DeBernardis and Katherine Taylor
Daily Compliance News: June 16, 2025, The Golden Share Edition
Daily Compliance News: June 13, 2025. The All Boeing Edition
Enforcement Priorities of the Second Trump Administration: The False Claims Act
Episode 372 -- DOJ Applies False Claims Act to Tariff and Trade Violations
FCPA Compliance Report: Revolutionizing Speak Up: Ariel D. Weindling on Enhancing Whistleblower Systems
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 53 – The AI as a Whistleblower Edition
Hospice Insights Podcast - Still Number One: Healthcare Fraud Remains Central in DOJ’s White Collar Enforcement Plan
Great Women in Compliance: From Hotline to Headline: The DOJ’s Whistleblower Awards Reboot with Mary Inman and Liz Soltan
Assume the following, you ask your company’s in-house counsel to handle a highly sensitive matter involving bribery of foreign officials. The employee is given access to confidential attorney-client privileged information...more
On March 25, 2025, in Smith v. Coupang,[1] the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Coupang, Inc.’s motion to dismiss its former employee’s SOX and state law whistleblower claims despite...more
In this episode of What’s the Tea in L&E, Labor & Employment attorney Mike Gardner joins host Leah Stiegler to unpack the topic of workplace retaliation. Retaliation occurs when an employee faces negative consequences because...more
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
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
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC holding that whistleblowers are not required to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under...more
Welcome to this edition of the FP Snapshot on workplace safety, where we take a quick snapshot look at a recent significant workplace law development that affects your safety and health programs. This edition is devoted to...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaiting decision in Murray v. UBS Securities. Murray interpreted the “contributing factor” element that a plaintiff must prove to make out a claim of whistleblower...more
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
On February 8, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660 (U.S. 2024) restoring a $900K jury verdict in favor of a whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)...more
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that an employee who blows the whistle under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) does not need to show that their employer had retaliatory intent to find...more
This is the first in a series of articles intended to provide the reader with a very high-level overview of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and how both...more
Each year seems to bring significant developments in whistleblower law, and 2023 has been no exception. As whistleblower activity increases, so, too, has the scope of its protections. From state to federal government, from...more
In early December, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order denying leave to appeal in McNeill-Marks v. MyMichigan Medical Center Alma,* a case involving fundamental questions regarding the meaning and application of...more
Employee claims of retaliation in the workplace have been on an upward trend since the California Legislature amended Labor Code section 1102.5 to include protections for whistleblower complaints made directly to a person...more
On November 13, 2023, in USA ex rel, Morgan-Lee, et al. v. The Whittier Health Network, LLC, et al., a Massachusetts federal district judge concluded that although the plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she raised...more
Whistleblower claims of all types generally require proof of three elements; a complaint of conduct believed to be unlawful (protected activity), some form of discipline (an adverse action), and proof that the adverse action...more
The right to bore, and not to be bored. These two cases are not from the U.S.A. But they have some good lessons for U.S. employers. Case One: "C'est cool d'être ringard." (English translation: "It's hip to be square.") A...more