Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Supreme Court Decision Expands Whistleblower Protections
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 11, 2014
Key Contacts
Back
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act not only shield employees of public companies, but also employees of privately held contractors and subcontractors, such as lawyers, advisers, and accountants, who perform work for the public company.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act not only shield employees of public companies, but also employees of privately held contractors and subcontractors, such as lawyers, advisers, and accountants, who perform work for the public company.
In Lawson v. FMR LLC, the plaintiffs alleged that they blew the whistle on securities fraud and, as a consequence, were fired by FMR. They sought protection under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which states: “No [public] company . . ., or any . . . contractor [or] subcontractor . . . of such company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or . . . discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of [whistleblowing activity].”
In response to the litigation, FMR argued that the provision protects only employees of public companies, and not employees of private companies that contract with public companies. As is common in the industry, the mutual funds served by FMR are public companies with no employees.
The majority of the Supreme Court disagreed. It concluded that the legislative history of Sarbanes-Oxley suggests that the statute was intended to encourage whistleblowing by contractor employees who suspect fraud involving the public companies with whom they work.
“It is common ground that Congress installed whistleblower protection in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as one means to ward off another Enron debacle,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote. “Also clear from the legislative record is Congress’ understanding that outside professionals bear significant responsibility for reporting fraud by the public companies with whom they contract, and that fear of retaliation was the primary deterrent to such reporting by the employees of Enron’s contractors,” she added.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued that the majority went too far, potentially exposing businesses to an influx of frivolous suits.
“As interpreted today, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act authorizes a babysitter to bring a federal case against his employer—a parent who happens to work at the local Walmart (a public company)—if the parent stops employing the babysitter after he expresses concern that the parent’s teenage son may have participated in an Internet purchase fraud. And it opens the door to a cause of action against a small business that contracts to clean the local Starbucks (a public company) if an employee is demoted after reporting that another nonpublic company client has mailed the cleaning company a fraudulent invoice,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss your company’s whistleblower procedures, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Supreme Court Decision Expands Whistleblower Protections
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act not only shield employees of public companies, but also employees of privately held contractors and subcontractors, such as lawyers, advisers, and accountants, who perform work for the public company.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act not only shield employees of public companies, but also employees of privately held contractors and subcontractors, such as lawyers, advisers, and accountants, who perform work for the public company.
In Lawson v. FMR LLC, the plaintiffs alleged that they blew the whistle on securities fraud and, as a consequence, were fired by FMR. They sought protection under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which states: “No [public] company . . ., or any . . . contractor [or] subcontractor . . . of such company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or . . . discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of [whistleblowing activity].”
In response to the litigation, FMR argued that the provision protects only employees of public companies, and not employees of private companies that contract with public companies. As is common in the industry, the mutual funds served by FMR are public companies with no employees.
The majority of the Supreme Court disagreed. It concluded that the legislative history of Sarbanes-Oxley suggests that the statute was intended to encourage whistleblowing by contractor employees who suspect fraud involving the public companies with whom they work.
“It is common ground that Congress installed whistleblower protection in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as one means to ward off another Enron debacle,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote. “Also clear from the legislative record is Congress’ understanding that outside professionals bear significant responsibility for reporting fraud by the public companies with whom they contract, and that fear of retaliation was the primary deterrent to such reporting by the employees of Enron’s contractors,” she added.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued that the majority went too far, potentially exposing businesses to an influx of frivolous suits.
“As interpreted today, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act authorizes a babysitter to bring a federal case against his employer—a parent who happens to work at the local Walmart (a public company)—if the parent stops employing the babysitter after he expresses concern that the parent’s teenage son may have participated in an Internet purchase fraud. And it opens the door to a cause of action against a small business that contracts to clean the local Starbucks (a public company) if an employee is demoted after reporting that another nonpublic company client has mailed the cleaning company a fraudulent invoice,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss your company’s whistleblower procedures, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.