Category: Protected Activity

Supreme Court Will Resolve Circuit Split Over the Definition of a “Whistleblower” Under the Dodd-Frank Act’s Anti-Retaliation Provision: Digital Realty Trust v. Somers

Today the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to resolve a split between the Ninth and Second Circuits on one hand, and the Fifth Circuit on the other, regarding the scope of anti-retaliation protection under the Dodd-Frank Act. In Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, Case No. 16-1276, the Supreme Court will determine whether,…



8th Circuit Adopts Sylvester Standard for Protected Activity Under SOX

In June 2016 the Eighth Circuit became the latest court to adopt the more lenient and Whistleblower friendly standard for protected activity under the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). In Beacom v. Oracle America, Inc., 825 F.3d 376 (8th Cir. 2016) the court addressed a case brought by a former Vice President of…




Retention of Employer Documents by Whistleblowers Part 7—The Negative and Destructive Consequences

While many whistleblowers may feel that the only way to prove their case is by collecting and taking the documents from their employer that prove the wrongful conduct that they are blowing-the-whistle on, such conduct can have serious negative consequences for any future legal claims by the whistleblower and may subject the whistleblower to personal…




Retention of Employer Documents by Whistleblowers Part 6—Retaining Documents as Protected Activity Under the Dodd-Frank Act

One of the most recent and broad whistleblower laws enacted at the federal level was contained in the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).  Although there is little caselaw on the statute and the protections it may provide for whistleblowers who collect, retain, and disclose information evidencing wrongful conduct, the Dodd-Frank…




Retention of Employer Documents by Whistleblowers Part 4—Retaining Documents as Protected Activity Under Discrimination Statutes

Under many anti-discrimination statutes the very act of collecting and retaining documents may itself be protected activity, or privileged, if certain criteria are met.  See, e.g., Kempke v. Monsanto Company, 132 F.3d 442 (8th Cir. 1998) (acquiring documents relating to age discrimination, delivering the documents to attorney, and directing employer to contact attorney regarding documents…