Difference between revisions of "Whistleblower Protection Laws"

Line 1: Line 1:
=='''Sarbanes-Oxley'''==
='''Sarbanes-Oxley'''=
To succeed in a Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation claim, the whistleblower must show by a preponderance of the evidence that
#she had engaged in protected whistleblowing activity;
#the company was aware of her protected activity;
#she suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and
#her protected activity was a “contributing factor” in the unfavorable action.
 
[https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/clear-convincing-evidence-whistleblower-case/ “Contributing factor” causation] is a light burden that can be met by showing that protected activities tended to affect in any way the decision to take the adverse action.
 
Once the whistleblower makes that showing, the company can avoid liability only by proving by [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/employers-burden-sarbanes-oxley-whistleblower-retaliation-case/ clear and convincing evidence] that it would have taken the same adverse action even in the absence of the protected activity.
 
Zuckerman Law's guide to SOX titled [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Sarbanes-Oxley-Whistleblower-Protection-Robust-Protection-for-Corporate-Whistleblowers.pdf Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection: Robust Protection for Corporate Whistleblowers] draws on their substantial experience representing corporate whistleblowers.


='''Dodd-Frank Act'''=
='''Dodd-Frank Act'''=