Creativity and Compliance: Reinventing Compliance with Creativity: The Acteon I-Care Code
Moving Beyond the Usual Helpline Data
Podcast - Bring Out the Bad Stuff
Adventures in Compliance: The Novels - The Valley of Fear, Introduction and Compliance Lessons Learned
Episode 381 -- NAVEX's 2025 Annual Hotline Report
Compliance Tip of the Day: AI, Whistleblowing and a Culture of Speak Up
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 56 – The Grasshopper Edition
From the Editor’s Desk: Compliance Week’s Insights and Reflections from July to August 2025
Episode 379 -- Update on False Claims Act and Customs Evasion Liability
Everything Compliance: Episode 157, The Q2 2025 Great Women in Compliance Edition
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
Welcome to our latest issue of SuperVision. In this edition, we cover the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding reverse discrimination, navigating lawful DEI approaches, recent trends in unionizing efforts, and the new...more
A pharmaceutical company is currently appealing a record USD1.6 billion judgment in the US, arguing that a key part of the US False Claims Act (FCA) is unconstitutional. This case, now before the Court of Appeals for the...more
On March 5, 2025, SuperValu, Inc. (SuperValu), a grocery store chain that operates in-store pharmacies, was cleared of liability by a Central District of Illinois federal jury—finally quashing whistleblower claims that the...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...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 this issue of Employment Flash: the new DOL rule on independent contractors, SCOTUS’s unanimous Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower ruling, plus labor law developments in California, Delaware, D.C., New York, the EU, Germany and...more
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month....more
In a victory for whistleblowers, a unanimous US Supreme Court has held that a whistleblower invoking the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1514A(a) (SOX) is not required to prove that his or her employer acted with...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently gave whistleblowers an easier path to win retaliation lawsuits they file, making the always delicate task of handling corporate whistleblowers that much more delicate. Compliance and HR teams...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
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Second Circuit’s decision in Murray v. UBS and resolved a circuit split in favor of employees, holding that although intent is an element of a Sarbanes-Oxley...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
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
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 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
In a landmark unanimous ruling late last week, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al. 601 U. S. ____ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent”...more
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
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
The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous pro-employee ruling that makes it harder for employers to defend whistleblower claims. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, the Court rejected the argument that an employer must have...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, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal court of appeals decision, resolving a relatively recent federal appeals court split regarding the standard for liability in Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claims....more