News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Protected Activity

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
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

Miller Canfield

Michigan Supreme Court Expands Liability Under Anti-Discrimination Statute; Endorses Third-Party Retaliation Theory

Miller Canfield on

“Third party” or “associational” retaliation is reprisal taken by an employer against someone other than the person who engaged in “protected conduct.” In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s anti-retaliation...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

Lathrop GPM

Lower Burden of Proof for Whistleblowers Established in Landmark Supreme Court Case

Lathrop GPM on

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

Fisher Phillips

Snapshot on Workplace Safety: Will SCOTUS Whistleblower Ruling Have Broader Impact on OSHA Investigations?

Fisher Phillips on

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

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

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

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

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

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on

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

Cozen O'Connor

Supreme Court Defines "Contributing Factor" Standard in Whistleblower Cases

Cozen O'Connor on

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

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

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

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

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

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti,...

A “Plaintiff-Friendly” Standard For SOX Whistleblowers – A Helping Hand For FCA Relators?

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti,... on

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

Baker Donelson

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with SOX Whistleblower in Murray v. UBS Securities

Baker Donelson on

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

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

Supreme Court Confirms Corporate Whistleblowers Don't Have to Prove Retaliatory Intent

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on

Tackling the tricky issue of how a plaintiff proves an employer's “intent,” in an opinion issued today, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, corporate whistleblowers have...more

MoFo Employment Law Commentary (ELC)

Whistleblower Roundup - Cal. Labor Code Section 1102.5, SOX, And More

MoFo Employment Law Commentary (ELC) on

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

Husch Blackwell LLP

False Claims Act Update: A Mid-Year Review (2023)

Husch Blackwell LLP on

The Supreme Court issued a number of headline-grabbing decisions this term on topics like religious accommodation, LGBTQ protections, and consideration of race in college admissions. These decisions are wide-reaching and...more

Littler

Supreme Court Holds Employers Can Sue for Strike Damages

Littler on

On June 1, 2023, in Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters, the United States Supreme Court ruled for the employer in a case with significant implications for the right of unions to strike and the right of employers to respond to...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The Supreme Court Pours Some Concrete on the Right to Strike

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

On June 1, 2023, in a resounding 8-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court granted employers an important victory by holding that the National Labor Relations Act and prior precedent did not preempt a state court tort...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court Holds NLRA Does Not Preempt Claims for Intentional Property Damage Committed by Strikers

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not preempt an employer’s state court tort claims alleging a union intentionally destroyed the employer’s...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

Supreme Court Allows Company to Sue a Union for Damages Caused by a Work Stoppage

Amundsen Davis LLC on

On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that federal law does not preempt the right of an employer to sue a striking union for damages in state court if the union failed to take reasonable...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court Asks Whether Tort Claims to Recover Property Damaged During Strike Are Preempted by NLRA

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

On January 10, 2023, justices for the Supreme Court of the United States questioned attorneys for a ready-mix concrete company and the union representing its truck drivers over whether claims to recover the value of the...more

Benesch

Post-Dobbs Update: What Every Employer Needs to Know Now - Presentation

Benesch on

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - ..6-3 decision: Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, with separate concurrences from Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Roberts, and dissent by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor,...more

42 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide