Supreme Court's First Sarbanes-Oxley Decision Promises Expansion of Coverage to Most Privately Held Businesses

by Littler
Contact

In Lawson v. FMR LLC,1 the Supreme Court massively expanded the scope of the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), from 4,500 publicly held companies to millions of private companies that are “contractors,” “subcontractors” or “agents” of a publicly held company.  Going forward, privately held employers should be aware that SOX provides a remedy for almost all U.S. employees who suffer adverse employment actions for reporting fraud.  Employers should train their management and human resources personnel to identify potential employment issues of this type and remedy them before they become costly litigation.

Background for the Lawson Decision

Congress enacted SOX in response to the massive scandals at public companies like Enron in the early 2000s.  SOX imposed comprehensive new standards for public companies and their boards, managers and accountants.  SOX also contained an anti-retaliation provision that prohibits a public company or an “officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company” from “discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, or in any other manner discriminating” against “an employee,” because that employee blew the whistle on mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, shareholder fraud, or any SEC rule or regulation.

Until Lawson, no court had addressed the meaning of the term “an employee.”  In Lawson, the plaintiffs worked for private companies that provided services for Fidelity mutual funds.  The plaintiffs’ actual employers were privately held companies, but served as contractors to the publicly-held mutual funds, which have no employees of their own.   

The plaintiffs filed civil actions in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts under SOX.  The first plaintiff claimed that she was forced to resign because she internally raised concerns about cost accounting methodologies related to the mutual funds, while the second plaintiff alleged that his employer terminated him for pointing out inaccuracies in a mutual fund SEC filing.  The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that SOX applies only to employees of public companies, not employees of privately-owned entities (like many mutual funds’ investment advisers). 

The district court denied the defendants' motion, but sent the question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for immediate review.  The First Circuit disagreed with the district court and held in favor of the defendants.  It read “an employee” to refer only to an employee of a publicly held company, not employees of private businesses like the plaintiffs.  The First Circuit noted that if employees of contractors and subcontractors were included within the scope of SOX, then so too would employees of a publicly held company’s “officers,” “employees” and “agents,” a conclusion the court of appeals declined to reach.

A few months later, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) reached a different finding.  In Spinner v. David Landau & Associates LLC, the ARB held that an auditor who was fired by a privately held firm could bring a SOX claim, because the privately held firm had provided compliance services to a public company.  The ARB found that the term “an employee” referred not only to employees of the publicly held company, but also employees of its contractors and subcontractors – though not the employees of “officers,” “employees” and “agents” of a public company.

The Supreme Court Decision

With this split between a court of appeals and the Department of Labor, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal in Lawson.  The Court rejected both the First Circuit’s view and that of the ARB, instead reaching the broadest possible interpretation of statutory coverage: that SOX applies to employees of publicly held companies, employees of contractors and subcontractors, and even employees of a public company’s “officers,” “employees” and “agents.”

In reaching this conclusion, the Court started with the anti-retaliation language of SOX.  The Court “boiled it down,” reducing the anti-retaliation provision to say only that “no contractor may discharge an employee” for blowing the whistle.  Simplified in that way, the Court concluded that the “employee” referenced had to be the employee of the contractor, not the employee of the publicly traded company.  As further support for this conclusion, the Court noted that SOX says one cannot “discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee,” and these are all actions that an employer takes against its own employee, not against the employee of another company.  SOX also provides for reinstatement, a remedy that a contractor could not grant to another company’s employee. 

The Court also noted that Congress enacted SOX in the wake of the Enron debacle.  In debating that law, Congress observed that Enron’s contractors were “complicit in, if not integral to, the shareholder fraud and subsequent cover-up.”  Enron’s fraud continued for so long in part because these contractors were able to retaliate against and even discharge employees who tried to report corporate misconduct, without any legal consequences.  Turning to the plaintiffs’ situation, the Court also observed that limiting SOX to employees of publicly held companies would essentially exempt the mutual fund industry from the SOX anti-retaliation provisions since publicly held mutual funds do not have any employees and instead are managed by privately held investment advisers.  Putting this all together, the Court found that “employee” must include employees of contractors.

One issue of interest to practitioners in this area was whether the Court would grant deference to the ARB’s interpretation of SOX.  The majority opinion did not issue a ruling on this point, though it was skeptical of the argument that it is the SEC that should interpret SOX rather than the ARB.  The three dissenting Justices did say that the ARB’s interpretations would not be entitled to deference, thus leaving the question open for another day.

While the Lawson case presented a “mainstream application” of SOX – finance professionals allegedly blowing the whistle on fraud at a mutual fund – the Court’s decision sweeps far, far wider.  First, the Court did not adopt any limitation to the word “contractor.”  Thus, SOX could reach not only employees of law firms, accounting firms or investment advisers, but also employees of companies that have nothing to do with compliance or fraud, such as cleaning or construction companies.  Second, SOX references “subcontractors” of publicly held companies.  Even if a company only did business with other private companies, its employees could still file claims under SOX if the company contracted with a company that contracted with a public company.  In short, virtually every business in the United States could face liability under SOX’s anti-retaliation section.  Even more broadly, SOX also prohibits “officers,” “employees” and “agents” of publicly held companies from retaliating against their employees.  Thus, if a parent who works at a publicly held company hires a babysitter, that babysitter could have a federal cause of action against that parent under SOX.  Similarly, a housekeeper or gardener working for an officer of a publicly held company would be eligible to file a SOX claim for retaliation. 

These somewhat remarkable outcomes were pointed out by a vigorous dissent in Lawson.  The majority opinion acknowledged that “housekeepers or gardeners” would fall within SOX’s protections, but dismissed these concerns as “more theoretical than real.”  As for the massive number of privately held companies that could now face SOX litigation, the Court found that those concerns “are [no] more than hypothetical.”  The Court concluded, “if we are wrong,” then “Congress can easily fix the problem by amending [SOX].”

Impact of the Lawson Decision on Privately Held Businesses

Unfortunately for millions of privately held companies, the costs of defending against a SOX claim and the potential damages available are neither “theoretical” nor “hypothetical.”  SOX has a particularly lengthy and complicated procedure, which allows claimants to have multiple bites at the apple.  A case is first investigated by OSHA, which determines whether there is probable cause to support the allegations.  If the claimant loses at this phase, s/he can then seek further review after discovery, through a de novo hearing before an administrative law judge.  If the claimant loses again, the case can be appealed to the ARB for another review.  Further, before a final decision is reached by the ARB, the claimant can at any time remove the case to federal district court for de novo review at trial, even if the case has already been decided either by OSHA itself or a Department of Labor administrative law judge.  The cost of defending against even a meritless claim at these multiple levels can be daunting.  Furthermore, if the claimant prevails, then s/he can recover “all relief necessary to make the employee whole,” which can include back pay, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and possibly even reinstatement.

To minimize the risk, privately held businesses in America must immediately take action to revise and, in some cases, implement new strategies to foster a culture of compliance and guard against the prospect of retaliation.   Fortunately, the past decade has seen a revolution in the evolution of new products, services and technologies designed to assist businesses in strengthening their compliance programs.  Because SOX now applies broadly to millions more companies in America, many of those will have to at least consider implementing a more robust and structured compliance program.   These measures include adopting compliance policies and creating systems whereby employees can make good faith reports of concerns regarding financial misconduct and the company can promptly investigate those complaints and take any necessary corrective action.  Further, human resources departments and front-line managers in privately held businesses should be trained on identification of financial misconduct, how to marshal the resources necessary to investigate financial misconduct, and how to protect legitimate whistleblowers from retaliation at the hands of dishonest managers.   


1  No. 12-3, 571 U.S. --- (March 4, 2014). 

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.

© Littler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Littler
Contact
more
less

Littler 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.