No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

Supreme Court Tightens Whistleblower Protections

by Scarlett Singleton Nokes
March 22, 2018
in Compliance, Featured
man protected from lightning by bubble

But Will it Change Anything?

The Supreme Court recently narrowed the Dodd-Frank whistleblower definition and excluded from protection employees who do not take their complaints to the SEC.  It is impossible to know at this point what effect the case will have on the number of whistleblower actions, both because the decision is new and because there are numerous other whistleblower protections in place.  In the aftermath of the decision, employers should continue to foster a culture that promotes compliance.

Up until last month, geography determined if an employee who reported a suspected SEC violation to her employer, but not to the SEC, qualified for anti-retaliation protection under Dodd-Frank. That is no longer true after the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on who is entitled to whistleblower protections.

In Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of limiting the Dodd-Frank Act’s definition of whistleblower to those who report their allegations to the SEC, and excluded from whistleblower protection individuals who report their complaints internally.[1] The issue before the Court was interpreting the language of Dodd-Frank, which defines “whistleblower” as “any individual who provides … information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a manner established … by the Commission.”[2]

Paul Somers, a former vice president of Digital Realty Trust, Inc., was terminated after he reported suspected securities law violations to the senior management of the company. Somers did not alert the SEC to his suspicions. The district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Somers was entitled to protection from retaliation under Dodd-Frank despite not going to the SEC with his concerns.

The Supreme Court’s decision reversed the Ninth Circuit and resolved a circuit split. The Fifth Circuit[3] had previously held that employees are required to provide information to the SEC to take advantage of Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation safeguard, while the Second[4] and Ninth[5] Circuits extended Dodd-Frank remedies to employees who reported alleged wrongdoing only to their employers.

The refrain of the case is that a would-be whistleblower must “tell the SEC” in order to benefit from Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision. It’s always notable when all nine justices agree, and here the Court relied on the unambiguous, clear and conclusive language of the statute to hold that anti-retaliation protection does not apply unless and until the SEC is notified of alleged securities law violations.

What Hasn’t Changed

The Digital Realty decision and the changes that could flow from it have generated a lot of discussion and analysis. It is important to note that the opinion applies only to complaints of securities violations covered by the Dodd-Frank Act. Whistleblower protection detailed under numerous state and federal statutes remains unchanged.

For example, the Court made the limited application of the opinion clear by contrasting complaints under the purview of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) with the provision at issue in Digital Realty.  Unlike the statutory section Somers proceeded under, the CFPB whistleblower-protection statute permits a covered employee to provide information to an employer, the CFPB or a local, state or federal government agency. Had Somers’ situation fallen under CFPB’s umbrella, the fact that he raised allegations only with his employer would not have impeded his retaliation claim from moving forward.

Similarly, employees who go the route of filing only an internal complaint continue to be protected under Sarbanes-Oxley and can recover:

  • lost wages,
  • reinstatement and
  • special damages.

The availability of Sarbanes-Oxley remedies is perhaps little comfort to potential whistleblowers. As compared to the provision of Dodd-Frank at issue in Digital Realty, the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley are more onerous and offer successful whistleblowers less reward.

Of course, there are numerous other specific whistleblower protection laws at both the federal and state levels.  A 2013 survey lists 40 discrete federal whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws.[6]  In addition, nearly all 50 states have some type of whistleblower law that prohibits retaliation.

Will the Number of Whistleblower Cases Change?

With so many other whistleblower protections in place, what affect Digital Realty Trust will ultimately have on the overall number of whistleblower actions remains to be seen. Most likely, the decision will trigger some change, but the degree and type of change is educated guesswork at this point. Employees have always had the option of going directly to the SEC, but historically less than 20 percent have done so. How much the needle moves as a result of the Court’s decision will be closely scrutinized in the months and years ahead.

On the micro level, this case was a win for the employer, but in the bigger picture, it is far from a clear-cut employer victory.  To the contrary, it falls into the category of a proverbial double-edged sword.  While the definition specified in the statute and adopted by the Court narrows whistleblower status and covers fewer individuals, it also removes incentives for employees to go through an internal complaint process before going to the SEC.

The likely effect is that more aggrieved employees will do exactly what the Court dictated and disclose their concerns to the SEC in order to preserve the benefit of the anti-retaliation provisions.  On the other hand, the SEC reporting requirement could deter some would-be whistleblowers who are reluctant to involve the government right out of the gate.

The SEC is also directly impacted by Digital Realty, and its Office of the Whistleblower could issue new guidance a result of the decision. It is likely that the SEC will see an increase in the number and quality of complaints received. If more (and better) complaints are filed, the Commission will also be tasked with allocating limited resources among more investigations.

Should Employers Change the Way Whistleblower Complaints are Treated?

This case does not create a new concern for employers, but it does unquestionably magnify an existing worry. Because employees have always had the option of going directly to the SEC, an increase in the number of complaints to the government is a change of scale, not of kind.

The biggest change employers are likely to encounter is difficulty in encouraging employees to blow the whistle internally before going to the government. Employees who seek legal advice before filing a complaint will likely be advised to go to the SEC first. Consequently, employers should assume that the SEC has already been notified by the time an employee reports alleged misconduct internally.

This decision does not create a compelling reason for employers to make wholesale changes, but it should motivate companies to re-evaluate and strengthen existing compliance programs.  Rigorous compliance programs remain important; the government will continue to closely scrutinize such programs in any investigation. It will also remain important for employers to work with outside counsel proactively, to implement and refresh compliance programs, as well as reactively, when potential concerns surface.

A crucial employer concern going forward is the possibility that the SEC arrives and catches a company completely off-guard with whistleblower allegations.  The worst case scenario for a company in that position is not having a robust and thorough internal investigation process already in place. Obviously, that is not the opportune time for all of the input and effort that goes into developing and applying a system for handling misconduct claims. As important as it is for internal procedures to run like a well-oiled machine when trying to work ahead of a government investigation, it becomes even more imperative when attempting to catch up to an existing one.

Even if comprehensive changes are unnecessary, companies should view this decision as an opportunity to fine-tune and strengthen every aspect of compliance. Employers should make sure employees are aware of reporting policies and provide both incentives and protection for employees who do come forward with well-founded complaints.  In the aftermath of Digital Realty, the upshot for employers remains the same: reports have to continue to be taken seriously, internal investigations have to be thorough and retaliation cannot be tolerated.

[1] 583 U.S. __ (2018); opinion available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1276_b0nd.pdf.

[2] 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(6).

[3] Asadi v. G. E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F. 3d 620, 630 (5th Cir. 2013).

[4] Ber­man v. NEO@OGILVY LLC, 801 F. 3d 145, 155 (2d Cir. 2013).

[5] Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 850 F. 3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017).

[6] Jon O. Shimabukuro, et al., Survey of Federal Whistleblower and Anti-Retaliation Laws, CRS Report No. 43045 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2013); https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43045.pdf.


Tags: Whistleblowing
Previous Post

6 Steps to Minimize Conduct Risk

Next Post

RepRisk Report: Most Controversial Projects of 2017

Scarlett Singleton Nokes

Scarlett Singleton Nokes

Scarlett Singleton Nokes, an experienced trial and appellate lawyer in the Nashville, Tenn., office of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, represents clients in a range of matters related to government investigations, white-collar criminal defense, regulatory and compliance issues, civil litigation and enforcement actions. For over 12 years she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney working in three different offices: Birmingham, Ala.; Nashville; and Savannah, Ga. During her time as a federal prosecutor, she led the investigation and prosecution of more than 200 cases involving a wide variety of crimes including fraud, money laundering, identity theft, tax offenses and RICO conspiracy. She also represented the government in over 20 trials, including the corruption trials of a sitting Birmingham mayor and a former Jefferson County (Ala.) commissioner. Most recently, as a criminal health care fraud coordinator, Ms. Nokes was responsible for overseeing cases involving durable medical equipment suppliers, physician groups, transportation companies, pharmacies and billing companies. She can be reached at snokes@bradley.com.

Related Posts

call of duty activision

Activision Settlement Highlights Where Companies Often Go Wrong With Whistleblowers

by Katherine Krems
March 8, 2023

The SEC has long relied on whistleblowers to enforce securities law, often making it worth their while to the tune...

Syncing your ESG programme across the business: five tips for building ESG into your organisation

Syncing your ESG programme across the business: five tips for building ESG into your organisation

by Aarti Maharaj
February 9, 2023

In today's business landscape, there's a growing awareness of how ESG issues affect the bottom line. While companies are adopting...

hottest takes

The Hottest Compliance Takes of 2022

by Staff and Wire Reports
December 14, 2022

Nobody was canceled for anything they wrote for our pages in 2022 — at least that we know of. But...

NAVEX regional whistleblowing hotline benchmark report_f

Navex 2022 Regional Whistleblowing Hotline Benchmark Report

by Corporate Compliance Insights
November 9, 2022

Explore benchmark data and regional comparisons for Europe, APAC, North America and South America. Regional Benchmark Report 2022 Regional Whistleblowing...

Next Post
RepRisk Report: Most Controversial Projects of 2017

RepRisk Report: Most Controversial Projects of 2017

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Code of Conduct Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT