Third Circuit Panel Liberalizes "Protected Activity" Immunity for Employees Claiming Whistleblower Status

by Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP

In Brief

  • A recent panel decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Wiest v. Lynch, et al., lowers the federal pleading standards pertaining to claims brought by employees claiming whistleblower status under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
  • Public companies, especially those that may be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts in the Third Circuit, ought to be mindful of this decision when taking adverse employment actions. Corporate conduct that seemingly bears no relationship to fraud and has no bearing on shareholder interests may nevertheless, under the panel majority’s opinion, qualify the employee for whistleblower status, and its accompanying protections, under section 806.

The popular image of the American corporate whistleblower, as depicted in Hollywood box-office smashes such as The Insider and Michael Clayton, is a courageous hero who reports corporate wrongdoing, often at the risk of retaliation by the whistleblower’s employer or fellow employees. Such retaliation may take the form of threats to the whistleblower’s reputation, career or personal safety.

For good reason, U.S. law contains protections for employees who report corporate misconduct. Most federal laws governing industry operations contain a provision that allows employees to sue their employer for monetary and/or injunctive relief if they believe they have observed serious wrongdoing by their company and suffered an employment-retaliation as a result of reporting it. Unfortunately, these laws do not provide much guidance to employers concerning whom and what to believe. Even a disgruntled employee motivated by nefarious purposes may use whistleblower laws to try to pry attention away from his own less-than-acceptable workplace conduct.

These legal protections afforded to whistleblowers have been liberalized further by a recent panel decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The ruling in Wiest v. Lynch, et al., No. 11-4257 (March 19, 2013), lowered the federal pleading standards for lawsuits brought by employees claiming whistleblower status under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX 806”). Arguably, if this decision stands, nearly every complaint made by an employee of a public company may be cloaked with SOX 806’s “protected activity” immunity. This would allow such complaints to survive a motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, regardless of whether the employee had a reasonable belief that illegal activity occurred (or was about to occur). A petition for rehearing en banc has been filed and remains pending before the Third Circuit.


Jeffrey Wiest was employed in the accounting department of Tyco Electronics Corporation (“Tyco”) for over 30 years, some of them with what was then Tyco International during the infamous “Kozlowski years” of corporate financial excesses. In mid-2008, Wiest raised several concerns regarding proposed business expenses and Tyco’s internal process for approval of those expenses, including the treatment of three corporate meetings and events under federal tax law. Wiest claimed he had been concerned about the potential impact that such events may have on employee morale, in light of recent corporate downsizing. Ultimately, upon further review by Tyco’s tax department, two of the events were approved as corporate expenses, while the third was properly treated as an award, the value of which would be imputed to the attendees as income.

Following Wiest’s voicing his concerns about the corporate events, Tyco conducted standard assessments of Wiest’s performance and awarded him a bonus of nearly $10,000 for that year. In mid-September 2009, however, Tyco representatives informed Wiest that they were investigating allegations that he had made inappropriate comments to female employees, had an improper sexual relationship with another employee, and failed to report a gift of baseball tickets from a vendor. Approximately two weeks later, on September 30, 2009, Wiest, who was fearful of the investigation into his alleged misconduct, left work sick and did not return.

Proceedings Before the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. District Court

Wiest blamed the termination of his employment on Tyco and filed a SOX 806 complaint against his former employer with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), claiming that he was constructively discharged. A significant premise of his claims rested on references to the “Kozlowski years.” Those references, however, were not made in his complaint to his employer about the expenses, but rather were set forth only in his complaint to OSHA and, ultimately, in his federal court complaint.

SOX 806 allows an employee to maintain an action against an employer if the employee reasonably believes that he has suffered an adverse employment action because of his “blowing the whistle” on a fraud implicating corporate shareholder interests. OSHA conducted its investigation into Wiest’s allegations and found them to be without merit, concluding that Wiest’s reporting of his concerns about the corporate events was not a contributing factor in the termination of his employment. Before OSHA reached this conclusion, however, Wiest initiated a separate action in federal District Court pursuant to a “kick out” provision in SOX. This provision authorizes a SOX claimant to re-file a complaint in federal district court if OSHA has not issued its findings on the initial complaint within 180 days.

Wiest re-filed his complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The District Court evaluated Wiest’s complaint in light of settled case law and held that Wiest failed to plead that he had been engaged in a “protected activity.” The case law from several different federal circuit courts of appeals requires a SOX 806 claimant to allege that the corporate conduct which is the subject of the employee’s report “definitively and specifically” relates to a violation of certain federal fraud statutes (such as those pertaining to mail fraud, wire fraud or securities fraud). This “definitively and specifically” standard was developed by the Department of Labor’s Arbitration Review Board (“ARB”) in 2006 and subsequently adopted as federal law in several federal circuit courts of appeals. The District Court found that Wiest’s concerns about Tyco’s corporate events related to federal tax law and employee morale, rather than any sort of fraud identified in SOX 806. Therefore, the District Court dismissed Wiest’s complaint.

Wiest’s Appeal

Wiest appealed the dismissal of his claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He argued that the District Court improperly relied upon the “definitively and specifically” standard because the ARB had since jettisoned it, rendering the subsequent circuit court decisions relying on that standard unpersuasive. Tyco countered that allowing the ARB’s recent change of heart to dictate how federal courts must evaluate pleadings sets a dangerous precedent, poses constitutional separation-of-powers concerns, and places the Third Circuit in conflict with every other circuit court that had addressed this issue as of that time. More importantly, however, according to Tyco, was the fact that eliminating the ARB’s “definitively and specifically” standard would dramatically lower the pleading threshold for SOX 806 claimants to maintain an action in federal court against their employers.

In a split 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit agreed with Wiest, reversing and remanding the District Court’s decision and holding that Wiest had sufficiently pled that he had engaged in “protected activity” under SOX 806. The panel majority stated that it was constrained by the ARB’s recent reiteration of the SOX 806 pleading standard and, consistent with the most recent ARB precedent, that Wiest was not required to plead that Tyco’s corporate events “definitively and specifically” related to any of the fraud provisions set forth in the statute. In other words, an employee need not plead that his communication about the alleged corporate wrongdoing was somehow connected to any fraud. Further, the employee’s report does not have to plead the existence of fraudulent conduct by the employer; it is sufficient merely for the employee to believe that a violation “is likely to happen,” according to the panel majority.

Potential Impact on Public Companies

The Third Circuit panel has designated its decision in Wiest as precedential, which means it constitutes binding authority upon all lower courts in the circuit. The significance of this decision, however, will likely extend far beyond the boundaries of the Third Circuit. As one of the few circuit court decisions addressing the ARB’s recent departure from the “definitively and specifically” standard, and the only one of those few decisions designated as precedential, Wiest may be cited as persuasive authority by other district and circuit courts addressing similar issues arising under SOX 806. The panel majority’s expansive interpretation of the whistleblower protections in SOX 806 – again assuming that it is not revisited by the court en banc – presents a sea-change in the law and may give rise to an increase in whistleblower litigation in the federal courts.

Public companies, especially those that may be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts in the Third Circuit, ought to be mindful of Wiest when taking adverse employment actions, such as imposing discipline or demoting or terminating employment. Corporate conduct that seemingly bears no relationship to fraud and has no bearing on shareholder interests may nevertheless qualify the employee for whistleblower status, and its accompanying protections, under SOX 806. If an accountant who is merely performing his job duties in identifying supposedly questionable tax treatment of corporate business expenses for further review can successfully maintain that his reported concerns were “protected activities” under SOX 806, it is difficult to establish any bright-line standards to guide employers dealing with similar reports from their employees in the absence of a connection between the employee’s communication and fraud. Unfortunately, the panel majority’s opinion in Wiest provides little guidance in this regard.

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.

© Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP

Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP 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):

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.


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 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:

- 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.