Article Summary

Oral arguments in Lawson v. FMR LLC — the U.S. Supreme Court's first whistleblower case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — seemed to show that most justices won't oppose a somewhat broader interpretation of the law's anti-retaliation provisions.

This article by TELG managing principal R. Scott Oswald was published by Law360 on November 19, 2013. The full article is . (Site requires paid subscription.)

Excerpted from:

Supreme Court Seeks Middle Ground For Whistleblowers

In oral arguments for the first whistleblower case they have heard under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court quickly locked onto the important issue: How to interpret SOX’s anti-retaliation provisions without gutting the law — or expanding it without limit.

Led by Justice Stephen Breyer, on Nov. 12, 2013, an hour-long discussion paid scant attention to the most extreme formulations of both sides in Lawson v. FMR LLC. Instead, the court seemed to spend its time groping toward a middle ground that would mostly favor employees.