Date: February 8, 2024
In a recent decision in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC et al., the U.S. Supreme Court held that whistleblowers don't need to show that employers displayed retaliatory intent to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — only that their activity was a "contributing factor" to negative action taken against them. Law360 spoke with TELG's Scott Oswald on the potential wider impact of this ruling — which Mr. Oswald believes may reach further than just the anti-retaliation laws one would initially expect.
Quoteworthy:
"The court is teaching us that the degree of discrimination doesn't matter, and nor does the exact mindset of the discriminator, as long as the elements of a specific law are met."
R. Scott Oswald
» View on Law360 (Site requires paid subscription.)
[EXCERPT]
Justices’ Whistleblower Ruling May Reverberate Beyond SOX
Law360 (February 8, 2024, 9:47 PM EST) — The U.S. Supreme Court held Thursday that whistleblowers don’t need to show that employers displayed retaliatory intent to have a viable case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a ruling experts say could help workers pursuing retaliation claims under discrimination laws like Title VII keep their claims in court.
In unanimously siding with whistleblower Trevor Murray, the nation’s highest court held that plaintiffs need only show that their activity was a “contributing factor” to any negative action taken against them — like being fired — to be protected under SOX’s whistleblower provisions without separately showing retaliatory intent.
[…]
R. Scott Oswald, managing principal of plaintiffs’ firm The Employment Law Group PC, noted that Justice Sotomayor engaged in a lengthy discussion about what the word “discrimination” means, with the justices positioning Murray’s case alongside recent rulings such as Babb v. Wilkie and Bostock v. Clayton County.
In Babb, the justices endorsed a plaintiff-friendly causation standard for federal employees to successfully prove an age bias claim in court, and in Bostock they held that Title VII protects workers from being fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“At first blush, today’s opinion reaches only anti-retaliation laws that follow a ‘contributing factor’ standard — in other words, not laws such as Title VII that require the protected behavior to be a ‘motivating factor’ of an employer’s adverse action, which is a higher bar,” Oswald said.
But the high court “has been admirably clear lately” that anti-discrimination laws prohibit “all differential treatment that starts from an illegal place,” he added.
“The court is teaching us that the degree of discrimination doesn’t matter, and nor does the exact mindset of the discriminator, as long as the elements of a specific law are met,” Oswald said.
» View on Law360 (Site requires paid subscription.)
