Free Trial / Sign Up                          Products / Prices / Samples                          About Us / Contact                          FAQs                          Home




Latest employment law cases 
Summaries and links to full text

LawMemo - First in Employment Law


Emailed directly to you
and online all the time

 

  Latest Cases       Advanced Search        Law Firm Directory        Arbitrator Directory        Law School Directory        Legal Resources / Blogs  

 

LawMemo Employment Law Blog 
All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic 
Also read LawMemo Arbitration Blog


« 4th Birthday | Main | Whistleblower was offered $5,000, recovered $3,000,000 »

Sarbanes-Oxley: An explanation from the 5th Circuit
January 25, 2008 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

Allen v. Administrative Review Board (5th Cir 01/22/2008) is a must-read case for anyone involved with Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower cases.

Allen filed a complaint with the Department of Labor against the employer, asserting a whistleblower claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. An administrative law judge dismissed the complaint. The Administrative Review Board (ARB) affirmed that decision, which became the final order of the Secretary of Labor. The 5th Circuit affirmed.

The Act prohibits a publicly traded company from retaliating against an employee who reports information to a supervisor "regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation" relating to one of six enumerated categories.

The court concluded that "an employee's reasonable belief must be scrutinized under both a subjective and objective standard." The court noted "[t]he 'objective reasonableness' standard applicable to [Sarbanes-Oxley Act] whistleblower claims is similar to the 'objective reasonableness' standard applicable to Title VII retaliation claims." The court also noted, however, "[w]e have previously declined to address whether the 'reasonable belief' element of a Title VII retaliation claim includes both a subjective and objective component."

The court determined ultimately that Allen did not act based on a reasonable belief and hence did not engage in protected activity under the Act.

For two good comments on this case, see:


LawMemo.Com


EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.