Murray v. UBS Securities
In brief
Murray won: a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower does not have to prove retaliatory intent to establish a claim.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · February 8, 2024 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that a whistleblower suing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not need to prove that their employer acted with "retaliatory intent" or animus to succeed on a claim.
- Who it affects
- Employees alleging retaliation have a lower burden because they do not have to prove an employer's animus. For example, a worker who reported suspected wrongdoing can pursue a claim if that report contributed to being fired or demoted.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Instead, the employee must only demonstrate that their protected whistleblowing activity was a "contributing factor" in the adverse employment action taken against them.
The decision interprets Sarbanes-Oxley's protections for workers who report suspected wrongdoing at covered companies.
Question presented
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief?
What the Court decided
Holding
A whistleblower who invokes §1514A must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that his employer acted with “retaliatory intent.” 43 F. 4th 254, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 8joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Alitowrote separately
From the opinions
“A whistleblower who invokes §1514A must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that his employer acted with “retaliatory intent.””
What's next
The case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings under the Supreme Court's rule. Courts and parties must apply the contributing-factor standard without requiring proof of retaliatory animus.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Show 6 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Opinion added: Murray
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Murray v. UBS Securities?
- The Court ruled that whistleblowers need only show protected activity contributed to an unfavorable personnel action. They need not prove retaliatory intent.
- Who won Murray v. UBS Securities?
- Murray won. The Court reversed the Second Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.
- What does Murray v. UBS Securities mean for whistleblowers?
- Whistleblowers have no duty to prove an employer acted with animus. They still must show their protected report was a contributing factor in the adverse action.
- Is the contributing-factor rule still the law after Murray v. UBS Securities?
- Yes. The Court said a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower must prove protected activity was a contributing factor, not retaliatory intent.
- What happens next in Murray v. UBS Securities?
- The lower courts will handle further proceedings using the Supreme Court's standard. The case was reversed and remanded.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.