Whistleblower Law Blog

TweetR. Scott Oswald, managing principal of The Employment Law Group® law firm was recently interviewed by Law360 on a recent Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB) decision establishing a lighter burden of proof for whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The decision, Zinn v. American Commercial Lines Inc., ARB No. 10-029, ALJ No. 2009-SOX-25 [...]

[Read more →]

TweetAccording to The Employment Law Group® law firm’s managing principal, R. Scott Oswald, “2011 marked a sea change for whistleblowers at the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB).”  The Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Journal recently published an article by Mr. Oswald which discusses the impact of recent ARB decisions on whistleblower protection and describes why “2011 was [...]

[Read more →]

TweetR. Scott Oswald, managing principal of The Employment Law Group®, was recently interviewed and quoted by Workforce Management Magazine on the subject of expanded whistleblower protection under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In 2010, Dodd-Frank amended the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and expanded whistleblower protections to include “nationally recognized statistical rating organizations” [...]

[Read more →]

TweetR. Scott Oswald, managing principal of The Employment Law Group® recently published an article in The Washington Post discussing new expansions of employee rights in the areas of whistleblower protection and wage and hour law. In the piece, Mr. Oswald discussed recent developments in employee protection law that, if ignored, could result in penalties and [...]

[Read more →]

TweetOn December 22, 2011, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) issued a 3-2 en banc decision that limits the application of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) outside of the United States. The case, Villanueva v. Core Laboratories, ARB No. 09-108, ALJ No. 2009-SOX-006 (ARB December 22, 2011), centered around a whistleblower complaint filed by [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet Morris Jones of Capital Insider interviewed The Employment Law Group® law firm attorney Adam Augustine Carter on the recent changes in whistleblower and employment law that will affect employees in 2012. The points Mr. Carter makes are that: There are almost 2 million home health aides and in-home care providers working in our country. Now with [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a lower court decision dismissing whistleblower Michael DeGuelle’s lawsuit against his former employer, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (SCJ) and members of management.  The Court recounted the facts alleged by DeGuelle that gave rise to the lawsuit: [While working in SCJ’s tax department,]DeGuelle [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet On December 16, 2011, the United States Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board issued important decision for whistleblowers and their advocates to end a year of landmark Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) decisions by the ARB, including: Vannoy v. Celanese, ARB No. 09-118, ALJ No. 2008-SOX-064 (ARB September 28, 2011) (holding that whistleblower disclosures [...]

[Read more →]

TweetThe Employment Law Group® law firm principal attorney Nick Woodfield was quoted in a Law360 article regarding the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (OSHA) recently published interim final rules.  These rules implement the changes made to the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) as mandated in last year’s Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer [...]

[Read more →]

TweetOn November 3, 2011, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published interim final rules that modify regulations pertaining to whistleblower complaints filed under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 contained amendments that strengthen SOX whistleblower provisions.  The recently released interim rules aim to [...]

[Read more →]

TweetR. Scott Oswald, Managing Principal of The Employment Law Group® law firm, discusses in the Law360 article titled Revival of SOX Case Stokes Confidentiality Concerns, which outlines the U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board’s blockbuster holding in Vannoy v. Celanese Corp.  Whistleblower Matthew Vannoy noticed potential weaknesses in his employer’s credit card reimbursement program and reported those weaknesses internally and to the IRS.  Some of [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet The Employment Law Group® attorney R. Scott Oswald discusses the landmark Menendez decision with LawyersUSA in an article titled SOX whistleblower decision creates employer problems.  The Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB) ruled that a failure of management to maintain the confidentiality of a whistleblower is a violation of the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).  Mr. Oswald outlines the positive consequences [...]

[Read more →]

TweetIn Vannoy v. Celanese Corp., the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB) reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, affirming that whistleblowers are protected when disclosing to the government confidential employer information evidencing wrongdoing. Whistleblower Matthew Vannoy filed a complaint with the Department of Labor on January 25, 2008, alleging his employer, Celanese Corporation, violated [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet On September 13, 2011, the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB) issued an opinion in Menendez v. Halliburton, Inc., another opinion in a long line of opinions this year and last year that affirm broad protections for Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) whistleblowers.   The ARB reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, finding that the [...]

[Read more →]

TweetThe U.S. Department of Labor ordered Bank of America (BoA)  to reinstate and pay $930,000 to a former employee who BoA is accused of unlawfully retaliating against. The unidentified employee worked for Countrywide Financial Corp. before it merged with Bank of America in 2008. After conducting an internal investigation, the former employee found “widespread and [...]

[Read more →]

TweetThe National Whistleblower Center, National Employment Lawyers Association, and The Employment Law Group® law firm filed an amicus brief in Villanueva v. Core Laboratories NV, a case before the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB).  Our amicus brief argues that whistleblowers at overseas subsidiaries remain protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) when the protected activity includes emails to the U.S., [...]

[Read more →]

TweetLaw360 quoted The Employment Law Group® Principal Jason Zuckerman in an article regarding the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board’s en banc decision in Sylvester v. Parexel International on May 25, which clarified the broad scope of protected conduct for Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) whistleblowers.  Jason Zuckerman, a principal at The Employment Law Group, which [...]

[Read more →]

TweetLaw360 Quoted The Employment Law Group® principal attorney Jason Zuckerman on the DOL ARB’s decision in Sylvester v. Parexel International LLC, which held that the Twombly/Iqbal heightened pleading standards do not apply to SOX claims initiated with OSHA and that a complainant need only express a “reasonable belief” of a violation to engage in SOX-protected activity.   See the [...]

[Read more →]

TweetThe DOL Administrative Review Board has issued a very significant en banc decision on the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) that significantly strengthens the statute by clarifying the broad scope of protected conduct.  The ARB’s opinion in Sylvester v. Parexel International LLC, ARB No. 07-123, ALJ Nos. 2007-SOX-039, 042 (May 25, 2011) represents a substantial [...]

[Read more →]

TweetBen James wrote an article titled DOL Broadly Reads Protected Activity in SOX Case in which he discusses the Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp. ruling by the DOL where the Administrative Review Board found that Lockheed Martin Corp. violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). Andrea Brown, Lockheed employee had complained to management that the vice president [...]

[Read more →]

TweetLaura Schreier wrote an article in Banker & Tradesmen titled Dodd-Frank Weighs Heavily on Mass. Whistleblower Case in which she discusses the recent U.S. District Court ruling in Pezza v. Investors Capital Corp. that Section 922(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act applies to pending cases.  Section 922(e) bans pre-dispute agreements in employment contracts that require Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowers [...]

[Read more →]

TweetThe Employment Law Group® attorney Jason Zuckerman was quoted in a Law360 article titled DOL Board Clarifies Scope of Whistleblower Protection regarding the DOL Administrative Review Board’s recent decision in Johnson v. Siemens Building Technologies, Inc.: Jason Zuckerman, a principal at The Employment Law Group®, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of whistleblower advocacy groups, said [...]

[Read more →]

TweetAgreeing with arguments posed by The Employment Law Group® attorneys, the DOL Administrative Review Board (ARB) held that an amendment to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) in Section 929A of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that Section 806 applies to employees of subsidiaries of publicly-traded companies, was a clarification of existing law and therefore “is not [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet In Pezza v. Investors Capital Corp., Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that Section 922(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which bans predispute arbitration agreements regarding the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) whistleblower protection, is retroactive.  The statutory language is as follows: (e)NONENFORCEABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS WAIVING [...]

[Read more →]

TweetIn Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp., Judge W. Earl Britt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled that plaintiffs Paul Feldman and Martin Perry successfully stated a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claim and could proceed to trial; defendants Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), John Carrington, et al., had failed to [...]

[Read more →]