A lawsuit from a former GlaxoSmithKline employee alleging that he was fired for reporting concerns over the pharmaceutical company's computer stability and security was properly dismissed, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of GSK in plaintiff Thomas Reilly's case. Reilly brought claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which regulates the accuracy of corporate financial disclosures and prevents fraud.

Reilly worked as an analyst in GSK's IT department for 17 years, according to Judge Michael Chagares' opinion. In 2011, he complained of alleged "serious security exposures" within the company's AS/400 operating system, chiefly the use of uncapped processors. (Uncapping a processor means allowing one server to use capacity from another server if capacity is available.)

In 2013, Reilly reported an additional concern: some users had more authority in the system than normal, he claimed. He was put in charge of fixing the problem, but eventually his superior, Jo Taylor, took over, the court said.

The following year, Reilly escalated his complaints, Chagares said. He did so again in 2015. He said in a company email that the computer problems could "lead to drug manufacturing quality problems, financial data irregularities and even more FDA penalties against GSK."

GSK conducted investigations in response to Reilly's claims and found them to be unsubstantiated, Chagares said.

Around the time of Reilly's latter complaints, GSK started laying off IT employees as part of an outsourcing process. Only the manager and one analyst position would remain. Reilly did not apply for the analyst position, believing his job to be secure, Chagares said. His employment was terminated in July 2015.

Reilly sued, claiming he was fired for reporting the technology problems, but his case was thrown out after U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled he failed to show he engaged in a SOX-protected activity.

On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed that Reilly failed to show that he was covered by SOX.

"Reilly's complaints about uncapped processors were nothing more than workplace disagreements about routine IT issues—ones that do not relate to illegal conduct or fraud. Indeed, in response to Reilly's complaints about uncapping the processors, Taylor worked with Reilly to get IBM's input and then made the decision to have all processors capped again," Chagares said.

"Taylor even assigned Reilly to the task of implementing the capping," Chagares continued. "The same scenario occurred regarding purported inappropriate access privileges: Taylor assigned Reilly to remediate and fix the issue. It is not objectively reasonable in these circumstances to believe that Taylor would assign Reilly to remediate those issues and, at the same time, was perpetuating a cover-up or fraud."

Reilly is represented by Scott Pollins, who didn't respond to a request for comment.

GSK is represented by Betty Graumlich of Reed Smith.

GSK said in an emailed statement: "GSK is pleased that the Court of Appeals agreed with and affirmed the decision of the district court that Mr. Reilly's claim had no merit."