Webinar: Is Your DEI Policy Setting You Up for a Lawsuit?
Navigating Employment and Separation Agreements: Lessons From Al Pacino's Serpico — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Employment Law Now VII-130- An Interview With EEOC Commissioner (Vice Chair) Jocelyn Samuels
Partner Greg Rolen Discusses a Whistleblower Claim at Fremont Union School District’s Board Meeting
#WorkforceWednesday: Whistleblower Risks in an Economic Downturn, Whistleblower Protection Settlement - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: Updated EEOC COVID-19 Technical Assistance Guidance, Case Decision & Wage & Hour Division Proposed Rule
What's Going on With Whistleblower Lines
#WorkforceWednesday: CA COVID-19 Policies Get Updates, NYC Pay Transparency Law Postponed, DOL Targets Worker Retaliation - Employment Law This Week®
Whistleblowers: Don't Drink the Government's Kool-Aid
What Employers Should Know About the Federal Joint Initiative to Reduce Workplace Retaliation
#WorkforceWednesday: Whistleblower Regulations Increasing, #MeToo Bill Passes, Cyberfraud Risk Mitigation - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: OSHA ETS Moves to the Sixth Circuit, Federal Agencies Join to Combat Workplace Retaliation, NY Increases Employee Protections - Employment Law This Week®
Life with GDPR - EU Whistleblower Directive - Part 1
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Enforcement Uptick, New York Limits Private Confidential Settlements, Anti-Harassment Training for Virtual World - Employment Law This Week®
Carrie Penman on Helpline Data Since the Pandemic
Podcast: Whistleblowing, Retaliation Risks Are On the Rise for Health Care Employers - Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday: OSHA ETS on Hold, Retaliation Claims Increase, "Vaccination Ambassadors" - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Withdraws, DOL Rolls Back, and OSHA Expands - Employment Law This Week®
Compliance Perspectives: Anti-Retaliation Programs
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
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
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
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
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 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
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, concluding there is no implicit “retaliatory intent” requirement for whistleblower claims brought under the...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 Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision holding that whistleblowers are not required to show “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, differentiating the...more
On July 25, 2023, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL.) introduced amendments to the False Claims Act (FCA), a law that protects the federal government from fraud, saving taxpayers billions. The FCA...more
SCOTUS to Review SOX Retaliation Case Involving Burden of Proof of Retaliatory Intent - On May 1, 2023, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660, the United States Supreme Court granted former UBS Securities employee...more
On May 1, 2023, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC.1 There, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an employee whistleblower suing under the...more
On April 19, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that providing testimony to FINRA (which is overseen by the SEC) does not constitute protected activity for purposes of establishing a...more