Difference between revisions of "Whistleblower Protection Laws"

Line 50: Line 50:


=='''Litigating Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Cases'''==
=='''Litigating Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Cases'''==
A Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation complaint must be filed initially with OSHA.  The complainant has the option to remove a SOX whistleblower claim to federal court once the complaint has been pending at the Department of Labor for 180 days.
A [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/sox-whistleblower-cases-litigated/ Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation complaint] must be filed initially with OSHA.  The complainant has the option to remove a SOX whistleblower claim to federal court once the complaint has been pending at the Department of Labor for 180 days.
 
==='''180-Day Sarbanes-Oxley Statute of Limitations'''===
The deadline for a SOX whistleblower to file a complaint is 180 days after the whistleblower first experiences or becomes aware of the unlawful retaliation.[https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/statute-limitations-sox-whistleblower-retaliation-case/#_edn1 i] The clock starts ticking once “the discriminatory decision has been both made and communicated to the complainant.”[https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/statute-limitations-sox-whistleblower-retaliation-case/#_edn2 ii]
 
The 180-day clock starts to run on the date of each discrete retaliatory act, e.g., the date on which the whistleblower is informed of a demotion, suspension, termination, change in job duties, etc.  However, in an action alleging a hostile work environment, retaliatory acts outside the statute of limitations period are actionable where there is an ongoing hostile work environment and at least one of the acts occurred within the 180-day statute of limitations.
 
A [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/legal-services/sarbanes-oxley-whistleblower/ SOX retaliation complaint] is considered filed once the Department of Labor receives it. A complaint sent by mail, however, is considered filed on the date of its postmark.
 
The 180 day period is not jurisdictional and may be equitably tolled when (1) the respondent actively misled the complainant respecting the cause of action, (2) extraordinary circumstances prevented the complainant from asserting his rights, (3) complainant raised the precise statutory claim in issue but mistakenly did so in the wrong forum, or (4) the respondent did not actively mislead the complainant, but instead through its acts or omissions lulled the complainant into foregoing prompt action to vindicate his rights.
 
“[A]lthough recovery for any action outside the 180-day period is barred, an employee may still use ‘the prior acts as background evidence in support of a timely claim.’” ''Roop v. Kan. City S. Ry.,'' No. CIV-16-413-SPS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177646 (E.D. Okla. Oct. 26, 2017) citing ''Dunn v. BNSF Ry. Co.,'' 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137109, 2017 WL 3670559, at *8 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 25, 2017), quoting ''Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan,'' 536 U.S. 101, 105, 110, 113 (2002).
 
[https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/statute-limitations-sox-whistleblower-retaliation-case/#_edn1 i i] 18 U.S.C. §1514A(b)(2)(D).
 
[https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/statute-limitations-sox-whistleblower-retaliation-case/#_edn1 i ii] 29 CFR § 1980.103(d).


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