A federal appeals court made it easier for whistleblowers
to claim protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), adding dramatic weight
to the U.S. Department of Labor's landmark
ruling that such employees can be protected even if they fail to cite the
exact rules their employer may have broken.
Instead, workers may simply show that they had a
"reasonable belief" that their company acted fraudulently - or was about to do
so - and that they were punished for raising a SOX-related issue. If such a
complaint is plausibly and properly made, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit held in
Wiest v. Lynch [an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com
subscribers], judges may not dismiss it without further proceedings.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 sets strict accountability
standards for financial behavior by public companies and, under Section 806,
protects workers against retaliation for blowing the whistle on a number of
Until now, employers have used a narrow interpretation of
Section 806 to kill whistleblower lawsuits in their infancy. Many judges
require workers to show a detailed understanding of fraud regulations - and to
have warned their supervisors in very specific terms - in order to get a
hearing on the merits.
Under the new decision, however, employees don't need
legal expertise or "magic words" to trigger SOX protection, said R. Scott Oswald,
managing principal of The Employment Law Group law firm. According to the
Third Circuit, Congress never intended such a "formalistic approach;" rather,
SOX protects any worker who identifies "conduct that falls within the ample
bounds of the anti-fraud laws" listed in Section 806.
In short: If workers believe that SOX-related fraud is
afoot, and if their belief would be shared by a reasonable person with similar
training, they can't be punished for reporting their good-faith concerns - even
if such concerns don't "ring the bell" on each element of an enumerated law.
The groundbreaking 2-1
opinion, released on March 19, 2013, helps to clear the way for the Obama
administration's more vigorous approach to SOX violations. Wiest is the
first appellate-level endorsement of the Labor Department's ruling in Sylvester
v. Parexel, which abandoned the strict "definitive and specific"
complaint standard that was formulated in 2006 under President George W. Bush.
Federal courts had deferred to the Bush-era
interpretation, which the Labor Department's Administrative Review Board (ARB)
rejected as inappropriate for SOX complaints in the Sylvester case.
In Wiest, a key issue was whether the Obama-era ARB deserved similar
judicial deference for its new, more employee-friendly reading of SOX.
The Third Circuit said yes: As long as the ARB follows a
"permissible construction" of SOX and "adequately explains the reasons for a
reversal of policy" - a test the ARB had passed, it held - courts must defer to
the board's new interpretation of the law.
The decision is binding only on federal courts in the
Third Circuit, but it covers important jurisdictions including Delaware, where
many big companies are incorporated. It will "set the table" for debate by
other federal circuits - including the Tenth Circuit, where another
important appeal is pending - and potentially by the Supreme Court, which
could provide the final word on the Sylvester standard, said Mr. Oswald.
The Wiest decision partially reversed a lower
court's dismissal of a SOX retaliation lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Wiest against
his employers at Tyco Electronics, formerly part of the scandal-ridden Tyco
International conglomerate run by Dennis Kozlowski, who was convicted of
stealing hundreds of millions of dollars.
In his original complaint, Mr. Wiest, who worked in
Tyco's accounting department, claimed that he was punished and ultimately fired
by Tyco for questioning the billing of extravagant corporate bashes. In one
case, Mr. Wiest alleged, Tyco employees treated guests to a five-day, $350,000
event at a resort in the Bahamas - yet attended only a single, 90-minute
Tyco changed its accounting for that event, but allegedly
grew frustrated when Mr. Wiest kept questioning other matters. The company
began investigating him for various infractions, including a relationship with
a co-worker, according to the complaint. Mr. Wiest claimed that his health
declined, resulting in a medical leave and his ultimate dismissal.
Despite applying the Sylvester standard, the Third
Circuit still allowed the dismissal of parts of Mr. Wiest's complaint. For some
claims, the court held, Mr. Wiest failed the "reasonable belief" test because,
based on what he said he told Tyco, a reasonable person wouldn't agree that he
was flagging fraud of the type covered by SOX.
But the court reinstated two of Mr. Wiest's most
important claims of protected activity. Tyco now must defend the case in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Besides endorsing the "reasonable belief" test in Wiest,
the Third Circuit also agreed with the ARB's interpretation of two closely
related standards in Sylvester and subsequent cases:
In addition, SOX still protects employees from
retaliation even if their "reasonable belief" turns out to be mistaken, the
Read the full Third Circuit opinion here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/114257p.pdf
Read other articles from the Whistleblower Law Blog
The Employment Law Group® law
firm has an extensive nationwide whistleblower
practice representing employees who have been victims of retaliation.
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.