What's the Tea in L&E? Why You Need Policies for Temps and Other Contractors
Navigating the SEC's Whistleblower Enforcement Wave: A Guide for Financial Institutions — The Consumer Finance Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: SEC Cracks Down on Private Companies for Violating Whistleblower Protections - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: The Basics of Mandatory Harassment Prevention Training
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Mandatory Harassment Prevention Training
Trust and Speak-Up Cultures
What's Going on With Whistleblower Lines
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®
FLSA and Wage and Hour Issues for Restaurants
#WorkforceWednesday: OSHA ETS Moves to the Sixth Circuit, Federal Agencies Join to Combat Workplace Retaliation, NY Increases Employee Protections - Employment Law This Week®
Andy Dunbar and Nick Morgan on What the SEC Expects from Your Internal Investigation
Doing Business in the European Union | EU Directive, Following Up With The Whistleblower
The New BSA Whistleblower Law: What You Need to Know
Compliance Perspectives: Anti-Retaliation Programs
Rules of the Road: Return to Work in the Time of COVID-19
Williams Mullen's COVID-19 Comeback Plan: Return to Work Compliance: What You Need to Know About Virginia’s New Emergency Temporary Standard
Employment Law Now IV-70 - Understanding the Latest EEOC Covid-19 Guidance
Employment Law Now: III-49- A Conversation With The Department of Labor in NY
III-40 – Valentine’s Day Episode on Love Contracts
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
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
Effective January 26, 2022, New York will greatly expand whistleblower protections provided to employees and independent contractors, creating new compliance challenges and avenues of liability for employers....more
What is “cancel culture”? During the last few years, there has been a groundswell of cultural movements seeking to rectify transgressions against traditionally marginalized groups, including women, Black people, members of...more
OSHA Safety Retaliation – What Is It? Virtually every employee protection law, federal or state, has some sort of anti-retaliation provision. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act is no exception. The Occupational...more
Last month, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee’s protected activity must be the “but for” cause of an adverse action to support a claim for retaliation under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The Court...more
Florida’s private-sector Whistleblower Act (“FWA”) protects only those employees who can show an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation, a federal district court has held. Graddy v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No....more
In Westawski v. Merck & Co., No. 14-cv-3239 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2016), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant Merck & Co. (Company) summary judgment on Plaintiff Joni Westawski’s (Plaintiff) SOX whistleblower...more
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) added Section 18C to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to prohibit retaliation against employees who engage in certain activities protected by the ACA. Responsibility for receiving and...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: For the first time since 1998, the EEOC has updated its enforcement guidance on retaliation claims brought under the various anti-discrimination laws the Commission is charged with enforcing. Observing...more
Effectively responding to employee discrimination complaints by current employees without running afoul of federal and state anti-retaliation laws presents a slippery slope for all employers. In fact, retaliation complaints...more
The federal government is allocating more time and resources to whistleblower programs. Now, more than ever, companies need to take steps to minimize exposure to whistleblower claims. When a whistleblower case is filed, it...more
In an important recent decision, DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic, the Fourth Circuit determined that the so-called “manager rule” exception to federal anti-retaliation laws does not apply to employment cases filed under Title...more
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently found that two former employees of Eihab Human Services (Company) raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they were discharged in retaliation...more
On July 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of New Jersey expanded the state’s already broad Law Against Discrimination (LAD), holding that an employee’s complaints about inappropriate workplace conduct need not identify any specific...more