Skip to main content

No. 22-660October Term 2023Decided Feb 8, 2024

Docket 22-660October Term 2023 (2023–2024)

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC

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.

Case status

Current stage
Decided
Latest event
Decision released Feb 8, 2024
Case Accepted
Arguments HeardOct 10, 2023
Decision ReleasedFeb 8, 2024
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. Instead, the employee must only demonstrate that their protected whistleblowing activity was a "contributing factor" in the adverse employment action taken against them.

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?

Case path

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit / Decision released Feb 8, 2024

Area

Decided Supreme Court case