![]() customers and he submitted his timesheets to the company’s U.S. ![]() servers his supervisors were in the United States he worked with U.S. corporation he regularly accessed the company’s U.S. In assessing the facts of the case, the court observed that “here may be some situations in which the relationship between an employee who works overseas and the parent company in the United States is so intertwined that a domestic application of may be viable.” In this case, the plaintiff argued, his employer was a wholly owned subsidiary of a U.S. Applying the “longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” the court noted that every court to have considered the issue has held that the anti-retaliation provisions of the two statutes do not apply extraterritorially, citing decisions in the D.C., First, and Second Circuits. The district court dismissed the claims, finding the anti-retaliation provisions of the two statutes did not apply in this case because the plaintiff’s principal worksite was in Canada and the statutes did not apply outside the United States. He filed suit in federal court in California claiming the company violated the whistleblower anti-retaliation provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts. computer technology corporation was removed from his position and received a downgraded performance rating after he reported what he believed was fraud to the company and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2024), a Canadian employee working in Canada for a Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. Ninth Circuit Holds the Whistleblower Anti-retaliation Provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts Do Not Apply Outside the U.S.The business groups will now be able to amend their lawsuit against the previous rule to challenge the new rule. On February 19, 2024, the Fifth Circuit granted the motion of the coalition of business groups to remand the case to the district court. On January 10, 2024, the DOL published a final rule that superseded the one challenged. Following an appeal of that decision by the DOL, the Fifth Circuit granted the DOL’s unopposed motion for a stay to allow the agency to complete a new rulemaking process. 22-40316 (5th Cir 2024) 1 to the district court that had rejected the DOL’s prior 2021 independent contractor rule. The Fifth Circuit remanded Coalition for Workforce Innovation v. Fifth Circuit Remands Case Challenging DOL Independent Contractor Rule.Further analysis of the case and practical considerations for employers can be found here. Rather, the plaintiff in a SOX case need prove only that their protected whistleblowing activity was a “contributing factor” in their termination, after which the defendant must prove it would have terminated the plaintiff even absent the protected activity to defeat the claim. UBS Securities, LLC, holding that a whistleblower need not prove that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent” in order to obtain the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). Resolving a circuit split, on February 8, 2024, the Court issued its opinion in Murray v. Supreme Court clarifies Requirements for whistleblowers filing claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month. This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |