Alleged whistleblower must only prove protected activity was ‘contributing factor’

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) found that former employees who filed a federal whistleblower retaliation claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) must only show the protected activity was a “contributing factor” to the employer’s adverse employment decision. Significantly, the Court found whistleblowers need not show “retaliatory intent”—in contrast to other federal antidiscrimination laws.

Facts

Trevor Murray was employed as a research strategist at securities firm USB. In that role, he was responsible for reporting on commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) to USB customers. The role required him to certify his reports were produced independently and accurately reflected his own views.

Murray claimed two leaders of the trading desk improperly pressured him to draft reports in a manner more favorable to UBS’s business strategies. He alleged he was pressured to just “write what the business line wanted” in his reports.

When Murray refused and reported the leaders, his supervisor recommended he either be transferred to a role that didn’t have Securities and Exchange Commission certification responsibilities or discharged from UBS entirely.

After UBS ultimately fired Murray, he filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL), alleging his discharge violated SOX because he was fired in response to his internal reporting about fraud on shareholders.