Justices Embrace Narrow View of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protections
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday narrowed the scope of whistleblower protection under the Dodd-Frank Act, ruling unanimously that employees must first report alleged securities violations to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
February 21, 2018 at 11:02 AM
5 minute read
SEC headquarters in Washington. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi
Updated at 12:09 p.m.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday narrowed the scope of whistleblower protection under the Dodd-Frank Act, ruling unanimously that employees must first report alleged securities violations to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The decision in Digital Realty v. Somers stated that simply complaining of wrongdoing within the employee's company does not trigger the protections of the law, thereby insulating securities firms from at least some whistleblower lawsuits.
Adhering to the language of the Dodd-Frank law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, said, “To sue under Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision, a person must first 'provid[e]' … information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the commission.”
During arguments Nov. 28, most justices were skeptical that a broader interpretation was possible because of the wording of the statute.
“How much clearer could [Congress] possibly have been?” asked Justice Neil Gorsuch, emphasizing the reporting requirement “to the commission.”
Daniel Geyser of the Dallas firm Stris & Maher, counsel to whistleblower Paul Somers, argued Dodd-Frank should be read in context with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
“The entire point that Congress had made in this statute [Dodd-Frank], and consistent again with every piece of modern, major whistleblowing legislation is to protect internal whistleblowing,” he told the justices. “This is the ordinary progression of getting information to the government. You first give the corporation a chance for self-governance. If they refuse to do it, then you go to the government.”
The U.S. solicitor general's office also argued that a narrow interpretation of whistleblower protections would fail to protect certain employees, including attorneys, who are required in some instances to first report misconduct internally.
“Our reading shields employees in these circumstances, however, as soon as they also provide relevant information to the commission,” Ginsburg wrote. “True, such employees will remain ineligible for Dodd-Frank's protection until they tell the SEC, but this result is consistent with Congress' aim to encourage SEC disclosures.”
The decision is a win for Kannon Shanmugam, a partner at Williams & Connolly who argued the case for Digital Realty. By coincidence, Shanmugam was in the courtroom Wednesday morning to argue another case, Dahda v. United States.
Two federal appeals courts reached opposite conclusions: the Fifth Circuit said tipsters must first to go the SEC, and a divided Second Circuit found protections for those employees who first reported misconduct to company officials. The ruling Wednesday overturned a Ninth Circuit decision.
Leaders of the SEC's whistleblower program have questioned the wisdom of the industry's challenge. Jane Norberg, chief of the SEC's whistleblower office, said last year that the agency's broad view of whistleblower protections should be favored by companies for making corporate insiders more comfortable reporting misconduct internally.
Jason Zuckerman, a whistleblower lawyer in Washington, said Wednesday's ruling could drive corporate insiders who might otherwise report internally to go more quickly to the SEC.
“No doubt this is actually a very big loss for corporate America. They won on this issue, but if you look at the big picture, this is a huge loss,” he said. “It is in the interest of large corporations to get employees to blow the whistle early, perform an investigation into the problem and halt it. As a result of this opinion, employees are likely to blow the whistle directly to the SEC because of the huge risk of reprisal and, because of the Dodd-Frank Act, there is a significant financial incentive to blow the whistle.”
C. Ryan Barber contributed reporting from Washington. This report was updated with comment about the Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court's ruling is posted in full below:
Read more:
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 AllDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
4 minute readWhen Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
- 2Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
- 3The Lawyers Picked by Trump for Key Roles in His Second Term
- 4Pa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
- 5Depo-Provera MDL Could Be Headed to California
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