Law360 Quotes Nicholas Woodfield on First-of-Its-Kind Ruling in Whistleblower Protection Case under Dodd-Frank

September 28, 2012

Law360 recently reported in its lead article on Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp. , the first court decision allowing a Dodd-Frank Act retaliation suit to survive a motion to dismiss.  In the article, Law360 quoted Nicholas Woodfield, principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm and attorney for Richard Kramer, the whistleblower who brought the lawsuit.

Mr. Kramer, a former executive for Trans-Lux, was fired after reporting to the company’s board of directors and the Securities and Exchange Commission that his supervisors has run afoul of the company’s pension plan.

Trans-lux had argued that Kramer was not a whistleblower as defined in the Dodd-Frank law.  The court, however found that Kramer was protected by against retaliation as a whistleblower and that “Trans-lux’s interpretation would dramatically narrow the available protections to potential whistleblowers.”

Kramer’s attorney, Mr. Woodfield told Law360 that he is “pleased” with the decision and that he regards it as “a fair decision that accurately reflects the goals of the legislators in implementing Dodd-Frank.”  Woodfield also noted that “whether Mr. Kramer will prevail at trial is another issue, but [the decision] fairly recognizes that it was the intent of Congress to protect [whistleblowers] like him.”

The article, “Judge Backs Broad Whistleblower Definition Under Dodd-Frank” appeared in the September 26, 2012 edition of Law360.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide whistleblower practice representing employees who have been victims of retaliation.

Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp., First Dodd-Frank Claim to Survive Motion to Dismiss in Federal Court

September 26, 2012

On Tuesday, September 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled that the definition of “whistleblower” under the Dodd-Frank Act encompasses individuals who make disclosures required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff’s Richard Kramer’s case against former employer Trans-Lux is the first Dodd-Frank claim to survive a motion to dismiss in federal court.  Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp., 3:11cv1424 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2012).   Scott Oswald and Nick Woodfield, principals with The Employment Law Group, represent Mr. Kramer.

Background

Kramer served as Vice President of Human Resources and Administration for Trans-Lux for eighteen years.  He reported to Chief Financial Officer Angel Toppi.  Kramer and Toppi comprised Trans-Lux’s pension plan committee.  Trans-Lux’s pension plan requires at least three members on the committee, and Kramer repeatedly advised Toppi that the committee needed at least one additional member.  Toppi repeatedly rejected Kramer’s advice.  In addition to serving on the committee, Toppi served as the sole trustee of the pension plan.  Kramer was concerned that this created a conflict of interest.

On four occasions between 2008 and 2011, Trans-Lux amended its pension plan.  On two of those occasions the two-person committee approved the amendments, although the plan requires approval by a three-person committee.  In addition, Toppi failed to bring the 2009 amendments to the board of directors for approval and failed to file them with the SEC.

In March 2011, Toppi ordered Kramer not to notify the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that the company had missed a contribution.  This notification would have resulted in an immediate penalty to Trans-Lux.  Later that month, Kramer notified Trans-Lux executives of all his concerns with Trans-Lux’s failure to adhere to its pension plan.  In May 2011, he brought his concerns to the board of directors’ audit committee.  Finally, he sent two letters to the SEC, notifying them of Trans-Lux’s violations.

As soon as Kramer expressed his concerns, Trans-Lux executives began to retaliate against him.  They reprimanded him, reassigned his subordinates to other executives, stripped him of his responsibilities, and finally terminated him.

“Whistleblower” Under Dodd-Frank

Trans-Lux argued in its motion to dismiss that Kramer did not report Trans-Lux’s violations in the manner that the SEC requires, and therefore did not meet the definition of a “whistleblower.”  Kramer argued that individuals who make disclosures  that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 meet this definition regardless of the manner in which they make their disclosure.

The court agreed with Kramer’s argument, citing to a final rule promulgated by the SEC on August 12, 2011.  The court explained:

Trans-Lux’s interpretation would dramatically narrow the available protections available to potential whistleblowers. In order to have provided information in the manner provided by the SEC, an individual would have either had to submit the information online, through the Commission’s website, or by mailing or faxing a Form TCR (Tip, Complaint or Referral). Mailing a regular letter is insufficient…. Such a reading seems inconsistent with the goal of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was to “improve the accountability and transparency of the financial system,” and create “new incentives and protections for whistleblowers.”

The court found that Kramer’s disclosures were required under Sarbanes-Oxley and relate to violations of securities laws and therefore are protected under Dodd-Frank regardless of the manner in which they were made.  The court further clarified that the Dodd-Frank Act expands the protections of Sarbanes-Oxley, and that this expansion is a permissible construction of the statute.

Related U.S. District Court Decisions

On April 3, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee confirmed that the term “whistleblower” includes individuals who make internal disclosures of security law violations, as long as the disclosures are made in accordance with the “certain laws within the SEC’s jurisdiction.”  Nollner v. S. Baptist Convention, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 986, 993 (M.D. Tenn. 2012).  However, the court found that plaintiffs Ron and Beverly Noller were not whistleblowers under Dodd-Frank, because their employer does not issue stock and was not subject to the SEC’s jurisdiction.   Id. at 997.

On May 4, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reached the same decision as the Noller court regarding internal disclosures and therefore granted plaintiff Patrick Egan leave to amend his complaint to include a claim for retaliation under Dodd-Frank.  Egan v. TradingScreen, Inc., 10 CIV. 8202 LBS, 2011 WL 1672066 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2011).

On June 28, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas declined to decide whether plaintiff Khaled Asadi met the definition of a “whistleblower” under Dodd-Frank for making protected disclosures under Sarbanes-Oxley.  Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, CIV.A. 4:12-345, 2012 WL 2522599 (S.D. Tex. June 28, 2012).  Instead, the court decided that the statute did not protect plaintiff Asadi’s disclosures because they occurred outside of the United States.  Id.

Richard Kramer is represented by The Employment Law Group law firm’s Nicholas Woodfield and R. Scott Oswald.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Announces Clamp Down on Discriminatory Lending Practices

May 01, 2012

On April 18, 2012 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a compliance bulletin announcing its intention to clamp down on discriminatory lending practices.  According to the bulletin, the CFPB plans to use a variety of available legal strategies – including disparate impact claims – to crack down on lenders and other financial institutions whose practices discriminate against consumers.

In the bulletin, the CFPB reiterated its authority to issue guidance about compliance with the fair lending requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and its corresponding implementation regulation, Regulation B.  The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2012 (Dodd-Frank) granted the CFPB the authority to enforce and supervise compliance with the ECOA, as well as to issue regulations and interpret the ECOA.

The ECOA makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against a credit applicant on account of race, religion, national origin, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance income, or due to the exercise of a right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.  The ECOA protects consumers from such discriminatory lending practices which can occur when applying for credit cards, car loans, student loans, mortgages, and other lines of credit.

In the bulletin, the CFPB noted that it intends to monitor banks and other financial institutions for lending practices that violate the ECOA, including lending practices that result in a disparate impact or have a discriminatory effect on individuals protected by the ECOA.

Individuals who come forward and report potential violations of the ECOA, including employees of companies that engage in discriminatory lending practices, or employees of contractors, competitors, and vendors of such companies, are protected against retaliation by their employers under Section 1057 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide whistleblower practice representing employees who have been victims of retaliation for reporting fraud or improper practices, such as discriminatory lending practices.

Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Journal Publishes Article by The Employment Law Group® Managing Principal, R. Scott Oswald

April 30, 2012

According to The Employment Law Group® law firm’s managing principal, R. Scott Oswald, “2011 marked a sea change for whistleblowers at the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB).”  The Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Journal recently published an article by Mr. Oswald which discusses the impact of recent ARB decisions on whistleblower protection and describes why “2011 was an important year for whistleblowers.”

In the article, Oswald highlighted 2011’s significant developments in whistleblower law, noting that “the ARB changed the standard of proving protected activity, embraced the concept of corporate knowledge, established the most generous standard for an adverse action in employment law, and established the fact that most Sarbanes-Oxley cases should proceed to an evidentiary hearing.”

Specifically, Oswald discussed the significance of the following 2011 ARB decisions:

• In Sylvester v. Parexel International LLC, ARB No. 07-123, ALJ Nos. 2007-SOX-039, 042 (May 25, 2011), the ARB affirmed that whistleblowers are protected under SOX even when mistaken and held that an employer’s disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity constitutes an adverse employment action, and, finally, found that whistleblowers can establish causation by showing that their whistleblowing activity was merely a contributing factor in the employer’s decision to take the adverse employment action.
• In Funke v. Federal Express Corporation, ARB No. 09-004, ALJ No. 2007-SOX 043 (ARB July 8, 2011), the ARB expanded whistleblower protections by confirming that an employee’s disclosure that a FedEx customer was using FedEx services to engage in mail fraud was protected activity under SOX, as was the whistleblower’s reporting of the customer’s conduct to local law enforcement.
• In Vannoy v. Celanese, ARB No. 09-118, ALJ No. 2008-SOX-064 (ARB September 28, 2011) the ARB “relieved whistleblowers from the heavy burden of proving their claims without using any of the employer’s confidential information,” whereas previously, Oswald noted, “whistleblowers could be subject to serious penalties for doing so.”
• In Menendez v. Halliburton, ARB Nos. 09-002, 09-003, ALJ No. 2007-SOX-005 (ARB September 13, 2011) the “ARB affirmed that whistleblowers are protected under SOX even when they are mistaken about the nature of their complaints” and held that an employer’s disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity constitutes an adverse employment action.
• In Johnson v. Siemens Bldg. Techs, Inc., ARB No. 08-032, ALJ No. 2005-SOX-015 (ARB March 31, 2011) the ARB “declared that whistleblowers may seek SOX’s protections from non-publically traded subsidiaries of publically traded companies.”
• Finally, in Villanueva v. Core Laboratories, ARB No. 09-108, ALJ No. 2009-SOX-006 (ARB December 22, 2011) the ARB “found that SOX can protect disclosures of violations of United States law by foreign whistleblowers who work for foreign branches or subsidiaries of United States companies”.  In the article, Mr. Oswald noted that, “as a result” of this decision, “even complaints to foreign compliance offices should be taken seriously and investigated when the violation claimed refers to U.S. law” because “foreign offices or subsidiaries can still violate U.S.s securities laws and resolutions.”

In addition to ARB decisions expanding whistleblower protections, 2011 also saw “the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau extend whistleblower protections to new industries pursuant to the Dodd Frank Act of 2010 – most recently payday lenders, student loan companies and mortgage finance companies”.

With this expansion of whistleblower protection, according to Oswald, “the ARB’s influence over the scope and contours of whistleblower protection, articulated in its precedents in 2011, will be felt for years to come by employers in areas of the US economy that may have had few, if any, whistleblower protections before.”

The article, entitled “More Protection for Whistleblowers”, was published in the April 25, 2012 edition of the Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Journal and was also syndicated in Compliance Daily, as well as Governance, Risk Management & Compliance Daily.

The Employment Law Group® law firm is a leader in the field of whistleblower law and has an extensive nationwide whistleblower practice representing employees who have exposed illegal activity by their employer.

Managing Principal of The Employment Law Group®, R. Scott Oswald, Discusses the Importance of “Robust and Responsive Internal Compliance Programs” with Workforce Management Magazine

April 11, 2012

R. Scott Oswald, managing principal of The Employment Law Group®, was recently interviewed and quoted by Workforce Management Magazine on the subject of expanded whistleblower protection under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

In 2010, Dodd-Frank amended the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and expanded whistleblower protections to include “nationally recognized statistical rating organizations” which include credit rating agencies.  Additionally, the new laws provide various financial incentives for whistleblowers who report fraud and provide protection for whistleblowers against employer retaliation.

Commenting on these expanded protections for whistleblowers, Mr. Oswald told Workforce Management Magazine, that it is necessary for employers to have a “robust and responsive internal compliance program” to ensure that employers do not violate the laws designed to protect workers who report fraudulent or illegal practices.

Additionally, Mr. Oswald notes that “employees don’t want to become whistleblowers,” rather they typically “have families to support and careers to maintain” but come forward in order to protect themselves from retaliation by their employers.

The article, “Whistling While You Work”, appeared in the April 1, 2012 edition of Workforce Management Magazine.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has a nationwide whistleblower practice representing employees who have been the victims of retaliation.

R. Scott Oswald, Managing Principal of The Employment Law Group®, Publishes Article in The Washington Post on Recent Expansions of Employee Rights

April 11, 2012

R. Scott Oswald, managing principal of The Employment Law Group® recently published an article in The Washington Post discussing new expansions of employee rights in the areas of whistleblower protection and wage and hour law.

In the piece, Mr. Oswald discussed recent developments in employee protection law that, if ignored, could result in penalties and other sanctions for employers, including: the miscategorization of workers as independent contractors; expansions in the protection afforded by whistleblower laws; and new wage and overtime protection for home healthcare workers.

On the subject of employee misclassification, Mr. Oswald wrote that:

 “in this tough economy, employers may be tempted to miscategorize an employee as an independent contractor in order to skirt requirements to pay unemployment insurance, Social Security, workers compensation and other employee benefits.”

However, employers could face stiff penalties for misclassifying workers, according to Oswald.  Specifically, in Maryland, employers found to be in violation of the law can be liable to pay both restitution to the misclassified worker and a $1,000 civil penalty.  Other states’ protections provide even more protection to employees, for example, according to a recently enacted law in California, employers can be subject to a fine of up to $15,000 for each violation and even up to $20,000 if the employer is found to have engaged in a “pattern or practice of these violations”.

Mr. Oswald also discussed new federal protections for whistleblowers under the Dodd-Frank Act which “has created a national whistleblower standard that applies not only to employees at publicly traded corporations but also to corporations that are regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).”  Among the industries now affected by the new whistleblower protections include, according to Oswald, “payday lenders, private education lenders, and mortgage finance companies.”

Also highlighted in the article were recent regulatory changes by the Department of Labor which will assist in “reigning in wage abuses in certain industries not traditionally covered by protections, including the home healthcare industry.”   As a result, more home healthcare workers will soon be protected by federal minimum wage and overtime laws, whereas currently there are nearly 30 states that do not offer such workers minimum wage or overtime protections.

As a result of these new laws and regulations, Mr. Oswald commented that “employers must be more careful in how they pay their workers and must be more rigorous in their human resources compliance.”

The Employment Law Group® law firm has a nationwide whistleblower practice representing employees who have been the victims of retaliation, as well as and extensive wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.

SEC Whistleblower Chief Reportedly Pleased With High-Quality Leads Received Since Beginning of Whistleblower Rewards Program

March 15, 2012

According to a report this week in the Financial Times, the chief of the Securities Exchange Commission’s new Whistleblower Office, Sean McKessey, stated that the SEC has “received notes, audio recordings of conversations and simple recollections” of securities fraud and other wrongdoing since a new whistleblower reward program promising rewards for whistleblowers began last year.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 requires that the SEC pay rewards to whistleblowers who voluntarily provide the SEC with original information that leads to successful enforcement actions.  Under the new law, whistleblowers who report fraud can qualify to receive 10 to 30% of the amount that the SEC recovers through lawsuits and settlements.

McKessey noted that his office has “been very pleased with the percentage of whistleblowers tips that have [signs] of reliability either because they’re from somebody working at the company they’re complaining about or there’s a sufficient amount of specificity, or both.”

McKessey also clarified that his office accepts both electronic and paper tip submissions and, while the SEC receives a greater amount of tips electronically, in at least one case, McKessey found a paper submission to be “extraordinarily specific and credible.” One such whistleblower tip reportedly formed the basis for the SEC opening a case last week.

The Employment Law Group® law firm is a leader in the field of whistleblower law and recently published a guide on the SEC’s new rules for the Dodd-Frank whistleblower program.

Department of Labor Administrative Review Board Decision Limits Sarbanes-Oxley Retaliation Protections for Foreign Whistleblowers

February 07, 2012

On December 22, 2011, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) issued a 3-2 en banc decision that limits the application of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) outside of the United States.

The case, Villanueva v. Core Laboratories, ARB No. 09-108, ALJ No. 2009-SOX-006 (ARB December 22, 2011), centered around a whistleblower complaint filed by Colombian citizen William Villanueva. Mr. Villanueva was the CEO of Saybolt Colombia, a subsidiary of Core Laboratories NV, a Dutch company which maintains an office in Houston, Texas and whose securities are publically traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

In 2008 Villanueva alleged that he was the victim of adverse employment actions, including termination from his job, after he warned executives in Houston that other executives were engaging in illegal tax schemes. After Villanueva refused to sign a fraudulent tax return, Core Laboratories purportedly terminated him.

Villanueva then filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging that the Saybolt had violated SOX by retaliating against him and that SOX should protected him as a whistleblower since Core Laboratories is based in the U.S. OSHA dismissed Villanueva’s complaint, after which Villanueva requested a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

The ALJ dismissed Villanueva’s complaint for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that while the case had domestic components, the principal part of the case was extraterritorial and that SOX did not apply extraterritorially.

On August 6, 2009, Villanueva appealed the ALJ dismissal to the ARB arguing that because executives working at the Core Laboratories headquartered in the U.S. had engaged in fraudulent practices and retaliation, the case did not require extraterritorial application of SOX.

The ARB affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of the lawsuit, ruling that SOX applies only to disclosures relating to U.S. laws and that the fraud Villanueva alleged involved only Colombian laws with no stated violation or impact on U.S. securities or laws. Additionally, the ARB wrote that the fact that Villanueva reported the alleged misconduct to Core Laboratories executives in Houston does not change the foreign nature of the alleged fraud.

The primary result of the Villanueva decision – and one that has surprised many commentators – is that the ARB rejected the “cause” or “decision-maker” test which had previously been used in favor of an “effects” test. The effects test looks to the effect of the conduct at issue and whether it implicates U.S. law, rather than the origin of the conduct, as the relevant factor for determining whether SOX applies internationally.

Because the ARB’s focus in Villanueva was that the whistleblower had only complained of violations of foreign laws, the ARB required the whistleblower to prove an actual violation of law in order to have a viable whistleblower retaliation claim under SOX.  This conflicts with the ARB’s recent decision in Sylvester v. Parexel Int’l, ARB No. 07-123, ALJ No. 2007-SOX-039 (ARB May 25, 2011), in which the ARB held that a complainant need not prove or identify the law believed to have been violated in order in order to constitute protected activity under SOX.

Judge E. Cooper Brown, Deputy Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, dissented from the majority’s decision in Villanueva, writing that the primary focus of SOX is not the underlying fraud, or even the location of the protected conduct, but rather the retaliation against an employee for blowing the whistle on potential fraud. The majority’s view, according to Judge Brown, was inconsistent with Congress’ intent in passing the Dodd-Frank Act’s strengthening amendments to SOX. According to Judge Brown:

“To construe the legal presumption against extraterritoriality as a bar to claims such as that presented by Villanueva constitutes, in my estimation, a legally indefensible restriction on the protection that Congress intended Section 806 to afford to covered employees.”

Additionally, Judge Brown wrote that the majority’s decision in Villanueva ignores the public policies underlying the original intent behind SOX, the recent amendments broadening SOX, the new causes of action under Dodd-Frank, and the ARB’s own recent decision in Sylvester.

Villanueva’s attorneys intend to file a petition for review of the ARB’s decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by the filing deadline on February 17, 2012.

As a result of the ARB’s decision, compliance professionals would now need to investigate and take seriously any complaints that relate to or implicate U.S. laws or have an effect within the U.S. Additionally, foreign offices or subsidiaries can still violate U.S. securities law and regulations, as long as an alleged violation refers to U.S. law.

The Employment Law Group® law firm is a leader in the field of whistleblower law and, together with the National Whistleblower Center and the National Employment Lawyers Association, filed an amicus brief in the Villanueva case.

Fifth Circuit Rules for Plaintiff in False Claims Act Retaliation Suit Previously Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

January 31, 2012

On January 5, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a two-year statute of limitations was the appropriate period for assessing the timeliness of an action brought by a private employee alleging retaliation by a former employer in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA).

The plaintiff, Michael Riddle, allegefs that after he complained to his supervisors at Dyncorp International, Inc. that the company had not fulfilled its obligations to finish a contracting project with the U.S. government, he was “marginalized” and “eventually terminated” on September 21, 2009.  Riddle then filed suit against Dyncorp on March 18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging that his employer had violated the FCA when he purportedly sought to prevent the company from making a fraudulent claim for payment to the government.

When Riddle filed suit, the FCA contained no relevant limitations period. In the absence of an express statute of limitations, courts have generally used analogous state statutes of limitations to determine the timeliness of a FCA action.  The district court dismissed Riddle’s suit, holding that the most analogous statute to the FCA is the Texas Whistleblower Act (TWA) which has a 90-day statute of limitations.

The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal, disagreeing with the district court and finding that the analogy between the FCA and the TWA was “lacking”.  The appeals court noted that the TWA only provides a cause of action to public employees and Mr. Riddle alleged retaliation by a private employer.  In addition to restricting its retaliation protection only to public employees, the court noted that the TWA was also not analogous to the FCA because the TWA requires public employees first “to pursue an administrative remedy before suing”.  This results in TWA limitations periods often exceeding 90 days because the running of the limitations period is suspended while the required administrative proceedings are pending.

In its decision, the Fifth Circuit held that the most analogous Texas state statute for determining the FCA statute of limitations is the two-year period applied to personal injury cases.  The court favored this analogy “because of its association with…a cause of action for wrongful discharge where a person is terminated for refusing to commit an illegal act”. In reversing the district court’s ruling, the court remanded the case for further proceedings.

The appeals court also declined to apply the new three-year statute of limitations for FCA retaliation cases created by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act because newly-created statute of limitations under Dodd-Frank was not yet in effect when the plaintiff filed his complaint.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide whistleblower practice  representing employees who have been victims of retaliation.

Capital Insider interviews Attorney Adam Augustine Carter about What Employees Should Know for 2012

January 10, 2012

Morris Jones of Capital Insider interviewed The Employment Law Group® law firm attorney Adam Augustine Carter on the recent changes in whistleblower and employment law that will affect employees in 2012.

The points Mr. Carter makes are that:

1. There are almost 2 million home health aides and in-home care providers working in our country. Now with new regulations these workers will get overtime and minimum wage protections.
2. There are now in effect regulations that implement the amendments to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADAAA) that broaden the definition of who is covered as having a disability and the key change is that an impairment does not need to prevent or severely or significantly restrict a major life activity to be considered to be “substantially limiting” the activity.
3. Revisions to the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower regulations clarify and improve the procedures for handling Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower complaints and implement statutory changes enacted into law as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reforms.
4. The Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board has changed the landscape in 2011 for whistleblowers under Sarbanes-Oxley and the new Dodd Frank amendments to make these laws more powerful for whistleblower claims to succeed and for whistleblowers to be protected so that they don’t have to choose between their job and doing the right thing.

Related articles

• TELG Principal Quoted in Law360 Regarding New Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Regulations (employmentlawgroupblog.com)
• TELG Principal Attorney Adam Augustine Carter Quoted in Bloomberg Article (executivecounselblog.com)
• U.S. DOL ARB Ends Landmark Year Holding Summary Decision Improper Unless Employer Proves Sarbanes-Oxley Act Does Not Apply (employmentlawgroupblog.com)