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
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
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
The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case of Miller v. Department of Corrections expands the scope of retaliation claims under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). This decision could have important...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
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Second Circuit’s decision in Murray v. UBS and resolved a circuit split in favor of employees, holding that although intent is an element of a Sarbanes-Oxley...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
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U. S. ____, 2024 WL 478566 (2024), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be...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 Background: In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC., et al. ("Murray") that an employee suing his employer under the anti-retaliation provisions of...more
Last week in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an employee who sued his former employer for retaliatory termination did not need to prove a retaliatory intent behind the decision. Murray v. UBS...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 released a unanimous opinion confirming that a whistleblower does not need to show their employer’s actions were made with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, concluding there is no implicit “retaliatory intent” requirement for whistleblower claims brought under the...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
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision holding that whistleblowers are not required to show “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, differentiating the...more
Employers know how important it is to comply with workplace anti-discrimination laws – but equally important is ensuring that employees who complain about perceived discrimination are not retaliated against for doing so, even...more
California employers will soon be prohibited from taking adverse action against employees who refuse to report to a workplace in an “emergency condition,” according to a bill Governor Newsom signed into law on September 29....more
In a decision with potentially wide-ranging implications for federal whistleblower protection law, the Second Circuit has held that plaintiffs who allege they were punished by their employers for whistleblowing activity, and...more
As we reported here, earlier this year, the California Supreme Court confirmed a relaxed standard by which employees can prove whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes,...more
On April 14, 2022, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the entry of summary judgment on claims under the Illinois Whistleblower Act and Illinois Jury Act, concluding that the plaintiff was not terminated for engaging in protected...more