Difference between revisions of "Whistleblower Protection Laws"

Line 24: Line 24:


=='''Proving Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Retaliation'''==
=='''Proving Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Retaliation'''==
To prevail under SOX’s whistleblower provision, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
*she engaged in [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/federal-courts-adopting-administrative-review-boards-broad-interpretation-sarbanes-oxley-protected-conduct/ protected activity];
*the employer knew that she engaged in the protected activity;
*she suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and
*the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action.
A contributing factor is any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision. Causation can be inferred from timing alone where an adverse employment action follows on the heels of protected activity.  The decision-maker’s knowledge of the protected activity and close temporal proximity will suffice to prove causation in some cases.
Once the employee proves the elements of a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation claim by a preponderance of the evidence, the employer can avoid liability only if it proves by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the complainant’s protected behavior or conduct.


=='''Relief or Damages for SOX Whistleblowers'''==
=='''Relief or Damages for SOX Whistleblowers'''==