Taking Company Documents to Support Whistleblowing— When Is 'Self Help' Unlawful?
Even as federal protections for whistleblowers have expanded, employers can still take strategic actions to address employees taking confidential and proprietary business information to provide to a governmental agency or for use in a whistleblower action.
June 05, 2018 at 01:28 PM
2 minute read
Photo Credit: Shutterstock |
The Current Conflict
|What if Trade Secret Information is Also Necessary to Pursue a Whistleblower Retaliation Claim?
|Possible Employer Legal Actions Against Misappropriators
- State-law remedies—such as for breach of contract for violating an NDA and/or common-law conversion or breach of fiduciary duty.
- Federal and state computer-use laws, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and comparable state computer-use laws.
Caution: Court Protection for Whistleblowers
Erhart v. BofI Holding Erhart Erhart Ed Ellis is a shareholder, and co-chair of the whistleblowing and corporate ethics p ractice group at Littler Mendelson, based in the Philadelphia office. A former a ssistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Ellis has tried more than 40 cases to verdict before juries and has represented clients at hundreds of bench trials, arbitration and administrative proceedings. He can be reached at [email protected]. Kevin Griffith, office managing shareholder for Littler's Columbus, Ohio, office, has extensive litigation experience in cases involving trade secrets and covenants-not- to-compete, the protection of business information, and compliance with the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Dodd-Frank Act, among other areas of employment law. He can be reached at [email protected]. To access The Littler Annual Employer Survey, 2018, visit: https://www.littler.com/2018-employer-survey
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1In Mafia Case, Justices Ponder: Is Murder Always Violent?
- 2In RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
- 3Lowenstein Hires Ex-FTX US General Counsel Ryne Miller to Lead its Commodities, Derivatives Practice
- 42025 Will Be a Turning Point for Crypto Counselor Laura Brookover
- 5Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency Practices Stand to Gain from Trump Election
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250