Retaliation Gets a Broader View

10 June 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Retaliation cases continue to grow in number and, in a decision on June 4, 2013 of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in scope as well. There, the Court in Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Administrative Review Board of the United States Department of Labor gave an expansive reading of what constitutes protected activity and retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (http://www.soxlaw.com/) (SOX).

SOX provides whistleblower protection to employees of publicly traded companies. SOX prohibits an employer from discharging, demoting, or taking an adverse action against an employee who provides information about or participates in an investigation involving activity an employee reasonably believes constitutes mail, bank, securities, or wire fraud, a violation of a rule involving the SEC, or any federal law relating to fraud against shareholders. While numerous employees have filed administrative actions or cases involving SOX, the narrow definition of “protected activity” has historically limited the type and scope of cases.

In Lockheed Martin, the employee complained that her superior was engaged in inappropriate sexual activities through a “pen pal” program the company had with members of the military. Specifically, the employee complained the supervisor was using company funds to pay for hotels, gifts, and transportation with people the supervisor met through the program, and then passed these expenses on to its clients, in this case, the Department of Defense. The employee filed a complaint through a company hotline. Thereafter, the employer announced a reorganization of the department in which the employee worked. The employee was subjected to a series of moves she deemed retaliatory, including the way in which her position had been restructured, loss of her office, and being prevented from attending a conference. The employee quit, claiming “forced termination,” and filed a SOX complaint. An administrative law judge awarded the employee $75,000 in compensatory damages, reinstatement, back pay, and medical expenses. The Administrative Review Board affirmed the decision.

Lockheed Martin had argued that the employee’s complaints did not relate to shareholder fraud and therefore were not covered by SOX. The Tenth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the decision of the Administrative Review Board. Of importance to employers, the Court ruled, “an employee complaint need not specifically relate to shareholder fraud to be actionable under the Act [SOX].” This is a broader read than what other courts have previously allowed and, if followed by other courts, expands the type of complaints that may be considered protected activity. The Tenth Circuit additionally ruled that while an employee must show the complaint was a “contributing factor” in an unfavorable personnel action, the standard for determining this is “broad and forgiving” and to be read in favor of the employee. Finally, the Court also affirmed the decision that the employee had been constructively discharged.

So what does this mean for employers? First, the case is one of the broadest readings to date of protected activity under SOX and may encourage employees to file more SOX complaints. Second, the case demonstrates again how careful employers must be in making even seemingly small personnel changes (e.g., change of title, office move, disallowing attendance at a conference) when an employee has otherwise raised complaints about company activity (or in this case, her supervisor’s activity). In other words, small actions can grow into a claim for retaliation. Employers must be able to show definitively and with good reasons why adverse personnel moves are made and be prepared to show the same decision would have been made even absent the employee’s complaint.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Text Messages, EDiscovery, and the New Threat to Privacy
21 November 2019
CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA