Difference between revisions of "SEC Whistleblower Program"

Line 179: Line 179:
#If possible, provide the whistleblower office with documentation of the violation. The SEC is much more likely to act on a tip that is supported by strong evidence. The SEC does not, however, want all types of evidence. For example, the SEC does not want information that may violate the company’s attorney-client privilege (e.g., documents, including emails, that involve advice from inside or outside counsel).
#If possible, provide the whistleblower office with documentation of the violation. The SEC is much more likely to act on a tip that is supported by strong evidence. The SEC does not, however, want all types of evidence. For example, the SEC does not want information that may violate the company’s attorney-client privilege (e.g., documents, including emails, that involve advice from inside or outside counsel).


== Prevailing in a Retaliation Whistleblower Case With Prior Performance Problems ==
== '''Prevailing in a Retaliation Whistleblower Case With Prior Performance Problems''' ==
Every case is unique and the outcome of a case depends upon variety of factors, but a prior performance problem is not an insurmountable obstacle to prevailing in a [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/legal-services/whistleblower-retaliation-and-whistleblower-protection-lawyers/ whistleblower retaliation case]. A whistleblower can prevail in a retaliation case even if they had a performance problem or problems prior to blowing the whistle. To prevail in a retaliation case, a whistleblower must show that 1) they engaged in protected activity, 2) their employer took an adverse employment action against them, and 3) the protected activity was a contributing factor to the adverse employment action. See Arnett v. Hilmar Cheese Co., 2018-CPS-00002 at 3 (ALJ Sep. 11, 2018) (citing various whistleblower statutes).
Every case is unique and the outcome of a case depends upon variety of factors, but a prior performance problem is not an insurmountable obstacle to prevailing in a [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/legal-services/whistleblower-retaliation-and-whistleblower-protection-lawyers/ whistleblower retaliation case]. A whistleblower can prevail in a retaliation case even if they had a performance problem or problems prior to blowing the whistle. To prevail in a retaliation case, a whistleblower must show that 1) they engaged in protected activity, 2) their employer took an adverse employment action against them, and 3) the protected activity was a contributing factor to the adverse employment action. See Arnett v. Hilmar Cheese Co., 2018-CPS-00002 at 3 (ALJ Sep. 11, 2018) (citing various whistleblower statutes).