Plain-English summary
Court says SOX whistleblowers must show their protected report was a contributing factor in firing; no need to prove bad
In Murray v. UBS, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower bringing a claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (18 U.S.C. §1514A) need only show that their protected activity was a contributing factor in an adverse employment action—not that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. The case was reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with that standard.
Why this matters
This decision clarifies the legal standard for Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) whistleblower claims nationwide. It lowers the plaintiff’s burden of proof to showing that protected whistleblowing contributed to a firing or other adverse action, which may make it easier for employees to prevail in SOX retaliation cases and encourages reporting of corporate fraud and safety violations.
Who may feel it
- Employees at publicly traded companies and those subject to SOX protections
- Corporate compliance officers and employers who handle internal reports of misconduct
- Securities industry participants and their legal departments
- Whistleblower lawyers and courts handling SOX retaliation claims
Key questions
- What showing must a whistleblower make to prove a claim under 18 U.S.C. §1514A (the SOX whistleblower provision)?