Questions presented
SCOTUS records, cert granted 1 May 2023
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 protects whistleblowers who report financial wrongdoing at publicly traded companies. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. When a whistleblower invokes the Act and claims he was fired because of his report, his claim is "governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code." 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(C). Under that incorporated framework, a whistleblowing employee meets his burden by showing that his protected activity "was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint." 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iii). If the employee meets that burden, the employer can prevail only if it "demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that behavior." Id. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iv). The Question Presented is: Under the burden-shifting framework that governs Sarbanes-Oxley cases, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with a "retaliatory intent" as part of his case in chief, or is the lack of "retaliatory intent" part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof?
Opinion summary
Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion
The US Supreme Court case involved Trevor Murray, a former strategist at UBS Securities LLC, who claimed he was wrongfully terminated for reporting misconduct in violation of the whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The central issue was whether an employee must prove that their employer acted with retaliatory intent to succeed in a retaliation claim under this act. The court ruled that while proving retaliatory intent is not necessary, there must be evidence showing that the protected activity was a contributing factor to the adverse employment action taken against them. This decision clarified how courts should interpret and apply whistleblower protection laws concerning evidentiary requirements.
Opinion written by Justice Sotomayor
Decided 8 Feb 2024 · Official report
Oral argument transcript
Argued 10 Oct 2023