On a “Clear and Convincing Day”: The Administrative Review Board Gives Employers Some Helpful Guidance

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Contact

As we have discussed in earlier posts, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) has, over the last couple of years, issued a number of opinions signaling a decidedly employee-friendly interpretation of the whistleblower statutes under its purview. One example was the original 2012 ARB decision in Zinn v. American Commercial Lines. In the closing days of 2013, however, the ARB issued another opinion in Zinn that handed a victory to the employer in the case. The opinion also provides guidance to all employers on how to satisfy the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirement that an employer  present “clear and convincing” evidence that it would have taken the same action against a whistleblower absent any protected activity.

The Zinn case began over five years ago, when an in-house attorney, Angelina Zinn, alleged that her employer retaliated against her after she raised potential U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting violations to her supervisors. Zinn claimed that shortly after she raised her concerns, her employer required her to submit to a drug test, reduced her responsibilities, and started monitoring her job performance more closely. Zinn was ultimately fired for insubordination and poor productivity. Her employer argued that the actions it had taken were consistent with its company policy.

After a two-day hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the employer, but in 2012 the ARB vacated the order. The ARB ruled that an employee does not have to prove that the employer’s reasons for taking adverse action are false and a pretext for retaliation, as she would ordinarily have to do under federal employment discrimination statutes. Instead, the ARB held that once the employee makes a bare showing that she engaged in protected activity and suffered adverse action related to that activity, the employer must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that it would have made the same decision absent the protected activity. The ARB explained that an ALJ must weigh the evidence as a whole in assessing whether an employer met the “clear and convincing” standard. The case went back to the ALJ who, after submission of additional briefing and evidence, again found for the employer.

The legal standard the ARB set forth in the original Zinn opinion was not favorable to employers, but the result the ARB reached in its most recent review of Zinn provides both clarity and a ray of hope for employers. This time around, the ARB agreed that the employer met the “clear and convincing” evidence standard by showing that Zinn had been fired for insubordination and poor performance.

The recent Zinn opinion has two important implications. First, it shows that employers can satisfy the “clear and convincing” standard by documenting the reasons for their actions, including evidence of employee misconduct or performance issues. Employers thus should have clear procedures in place to document employee conduct, and make sure that their policies are implemented evenhandedly throughout the company to improve their chances of defending against potential claims.

Second, it may be that as the ALJs and ARB apply Zinn to rule in favor of employers, the number of cases pursued through the administrative process at the U.S. Department of Labor will decline, reversing the trend encouraged by employee-friendly opinions broadening the scope of protected activity, relaxing the pleading standard, and liberally construing the term “adverse action.” We will be monitoring the impact of Zinn over the coming year and keep you advised.

- See more at: http://blog.ogletreedeakins.com/on-a-clear-and-convincing-day-the-administrative-review-board-gives-employers-some-helpful-guidance/#sthash.STLYUUhc.dpuf

As we have discussed in earlier posts, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) has, over the last couple of years, issued a number of opinions signaling a decidedly employee-friendly interpretation of the whistleblower statutes under its purview. One example was the original 2012 ARB decision in Zinn v. American Commercial Lines. In the closing days of 2013, however, the ARB issued another opinion in Zinn that handed a victory to the employer in the case. The opinion also provides guidance to all employers on how to satisfy the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirement that an employer  present “clear and convincing” evidence that it would have taken the same action against a whistleblower absent any protected activity.

The Zinn case began over five years ago, when an in-house attorney, Angelina Zinn, alleged that her employer retaliated against her after she raised potential U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting violations to her supervisors. Zinn claimed that shortly after she raised her concerns, her employer required her to submit to a drug test, reduced her responsibilities, and started monitoring her job performance more closely. Zinn was ultimately fired for insubordination and poor productivity. Her employer argued that the actions it had taken were consistent with its company policy.

After a two-day hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the employer, but in 2012 the ARB vacated the order. The ARB ruled that an employee does not have to prove that the employer’s reasons for taking adverse action are false and a pretext for retaliation, as she would ordinarily have to do under federal employment discrimination statutes. Instead, the ARB held that once the employee makes a bare showing that she engaged in protected activity and suffered adverse action related to that activity, the employer must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that it would have made the same decision absent the protected activity. The ARB explained that an ALJ must weigh the evidence as a whole in assessing whether an employer met the “clear and convincing” standard. The case went back to the ALJ who, after submission of additional briefing and evidence, again found for the employer.

The legal standard the ARB set forth in the original Zinn opinion was not favorable to employers, but the result the ARB reached in its most recent review of Zinn provides both clarity and a ray of hope for employers. This time around, the ARB agreed that the employer met the “clear and convincing” evidence standard by showing that Zinn had been fired for insubordination and poor performance.

The recent Zinn opinion has two important implications. First, it shows that employers can satisfy the “clear and convincing” standard by documenting the reasons for their actions, including evidence of employee misconduct or performance issues. Employers thus should have clear procedures in place to document employee conduct, and make sure that their policies are implemented evenhandedly throughout the company to improve their chances of defending against potential claims.

Second, it may be that as the ALJs and ARB apply Zinn to rule in favor of employers, the number of cases pursued through the administrative process at the U.S. Department of Labor will decline, reversing the trend encouraged by employee-friendly opinions broadening the scope of protected activity, relaxing the pleading standard, and liberally construing the term “adverse action.” We will be monitoring the impact of Zinn over the coming year and keep you advised.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Contact
more
less

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.