Whistleblowers Archives - Kollman & Saucier P.A.

Supreme Court Issues Decision On “Retaliatory Intent” Requirement Under Sarbanes-Oxley

Kollman & Saucier

02/13/2024

Retaliation, Whistleblowers, Wrongful Discharge

On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Murray v. UBS, 22-660, _S.Ct._(2024), a case involving the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley was passed as a result of the Enron scandal, where the company used illicit accounting practices to inflate their revenue to appear more profitable. Enron employees who raised concerns about Enron’s corrupt practices faced unfavorable treatment and even termination...

Peter Saucier

09/01/2023

Maryland Law, Whistleblowers

A Radiation Therapist in the Oncology treatment operation at Mercy Hospital violated rules requiring that she obtain signed patient waivers at the same time that her overall performance was unsatisfactory. Supervising physicians and co-workers cataloged a number of the Therapist’s short-fallings. A key supervising physician described to investigators at Mercy incidents of “poor job performance and altercations with co-workers.” Romeka v....

Darrell VanDeusen

02/07/2023

Whistleblowers

I don’t often take a deep dive into the False Claims Act. But a recent case got my attention. That’s because I am both a (former adjunct) professor and a scuba diver. So, when those issues converge in a lawsuit what else can I do but write about them. United States v. Parsons-Hietikko, 19-cv-7705-RA (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2023). First, let’s talk about what we’re talking about. The federal False Claims Act, 37 U.S.C. §3729 et seq....

Kollman & Saucier

12/17/2021

Retaliation, Virginia Employment Law, Whistleblowers

When employers conduct investigations into suspected employee misconduct, they often place the employee on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently held that placing an employee on such a leave does not amount to an adverse employment action under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Kashif v. PNC Bank, Civil Action No,...

Kollman & Saucier

12/27/2017

Whistleblowers

William O’Hara sued his former employer, NIKA Technologies, Inc., under the whistleblower-protection provisions of the False Claims Act (the “FCA”), 31 U.S.C. 3730(h), and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “ARRA”), Pub. L. No. 11-5, 123 Stat. 297-99 (2009). Essentially, O’Hara claimed that NIKA fired him for disclosing another company’s alleged fraud on the government. The district court granted summary judgment in...

Kollman & Saucier

08/04/2017

Virginia Employment Law, Whistleblowers, Workplace Safety

On July 14, 2017, a Norfolk federal judge denied a motion to dismiss a former Red Cross employee's claim that her employer fired her for reporting what she believed were health and safety violations committed by her supervisor. Easterbrooks v. American Red Cross, No. 2:17cv98 (E.D. Va. 2017). Judge Raymond Jackson ruled that plaintiff Julie Easterbrook's claims were sufficient to state a cause of action under Virginia Code Section 40.1-51.2.1,...

Kollman & Saucier

06/20/2014

Whistleblowers

On June 16th, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed (and settled) its first Dodd-Frank whistleblower anti-retaliation claim. While employers should be aware of the new enforcement action taken by the SEC, the allegations show that even the most sophisticated employer can engage in very questionable behavior. According to the SEC Settlement Order, which can be found here, Paradigm Capital Management, Inc., a registered investment adviser,...

Kollman & Saucier

07/18/2013

Whistleblowers

Over the past two years, several federal courts have wrestled with the scope of whistleblower protections under the Dodd-Frank Act (“DFA”), codified at 15 U.S.C. §78u-6(h). To date, all of the district courts to address the issue have held that an employee claiming whistleblower retaliation in violation of DFA need not make a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission to be protected by DFA. As a result, employees alleging that they...

Kollman & Saucier

06/08/2013

Retaliation, Whistleblowers

On June 4, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed a ruling by the United States Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board and held that Lockheed Martin violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) by constructively discharging an employee after she complained about an executive who allegedly had sexual affairs with soldiers she met through the company's pen-pal program. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. ARB, 10th Cir...

Email Updates

Supreme Court Issues Decision On “Retaliatory Intent” Requirement Under Sarbanes-Oxley

WHISTLE BLOWERS ON THE VERGE OF TERMINATION BEAR A HEAVY BURDEN

Let’s See if Nemo is HIV Positive

Placement on Leave Pending Investigation is Not Adverse Action

Fourth Circuit Clarifies Standard For Retaliation Claims Under False Claims Act

Red Cross Stuck With Phlebotomist's Retaliatory Discharge Claim

SEC Settles Whistleblower Retaliation Charge

Fifth Circuit Takes Limited View of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protections

10th Circuit Affirms SOX Whistleblower Ruling

Email Updates

Email Updates

Category: Whistleblowers

Email Updates