|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Ninth Circuit Permits In-House Counsel to Proceed with SOX Whistleblower Claims.Ford & Harrison LLP - October 29, 2009 The Ninth Circuit recently issued its first decision addressing the substantive requirements necessary to establish a claim under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). See Van Asdale v. International Game Technology (9th Cir. August 13, 2009). In overturning the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the employer, the Ninth Circuit relied on the text of the statute and the Department of Labor's (DOL) regulations interpreting the statute. Report Link Ninth Circuit Reinstates Sarbanes-Oxley Lawsuit Brought by In-House Corporate Lawyers.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 14, 2009 Two former in-house corporate attorneys were entitled to a trial of their claims brought under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) that they were fired because of complaints about fraud against the company’s shareholders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in San Francisco) has held. In deciding its first case under the whistleblower provision of SOX, Van Asdale v. International Game Tech., et al., the Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendants and held that the plaintiffs had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they wrongfully were discharged. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Report Link Ninth Circuit Issues Its First Ruling Setting Forth the Elements for Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Claims.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - September 04, 2009 The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,1 (“Sarbanes-Oxley” or “SOX”) protects employees of publicly traded companies from retaliation for providing information related to possible acts of fraud against shareholders. In Van Asdale v. International Game Technology, No. 07-16597 (9th Cir. 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, addressing for the first time the substantive elements of a SOX whistleblower claim, ruled that employees do not have to prove that actual shareholder fraud has occurred to maintain such a suit. Rather, plaintiffs need only establish that they had an actual and objectively reasonable belief that shareholder fraud occurred. In addition, the Ninth Circuit held that concerns about the potential disclosure of attorney-client privileged information would not bar in-house attorneys from asserting SOX whistleblower claims. While the ruling is ultimately a conservative one that closely tracks the existing case law and regulations, it is an important decision for the Ninth Circuit. Report Link Anti-Retaliation Law: Sarbox Whistleblowers.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - September 04, 2009 The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, sometimes called Sarbox or SOX, is a federal law enacted in 2002, as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including Enron and WorldCom. Sarbox set new or enhanced standards for public company boards, management and their public accounting firms. It does not apply to privately held companies. The act contains a number of provisions ranging from additional corporate board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the new law. Report Link SARBANES-OXLEY’S WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION EXPLAINED.Shaw Valenza LLP - August 27, 2009 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) is a federal law. Congress passed it on July 30, 2002, in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals. SOX, among other things, created whistleblower protection for any employee who reports that a publicly-traded company subject to SEC regulations has engaged in any of a number of fraudulent activities.
Although introduced with great fanfare, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just recently issued its first opinion analyzing the substantive requirements necessary to establish a claim under the Act’s whistleblower-protection provisions. In Van Arsdale v. International Game Technology, decided on August 13, 2009, the Court held whistleblowers must show only that they called attention to what they believed was fraud to sue their employers for wrongful termination under SOX.
Report Link Hospital Liable Under Aviation Safety Whistleblower Law.Baker Hostetler LLP - July 28, 2009 Miami Valley Hospital (Miami Valley) and an air ambulance service which furnished pilots and mechanics for the hospital’s air ambulance operation were held jointly liable by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (Board) for violating the whistleblower protection provisions of the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21) when they fired an air ambulance pilot as a result of his safety-related complaints to a supervisor and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Evans v. Miami Valley Hospital, DOL ARB, No. 07-118 (June 30, 2009). The Board ordered the pilot reinstated with back pay and awarded him $100,000 for the emotional distress resulting from his termination. Report Link Employers Threatened by a Connection Between Data Security and Whistleblowing/Retaliation Claims?Jackson Lewis LLP - May 29, 2009 Many companies are expediting their efforts to develop safeguards to protect personal data in response to the rapid emergence of data privacy and security regulations. The New Jersey Identify Theft Protection Act, the Massachusetts data security regulations, the federal “red flag” regulations, and the recent amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are prime examples of the wave of regulation directed at protecting personal data. While fear of data breaches, reputational harm, litigation and penalties usually drive company executives to action, employee whistleblower and retaliation claims also must be added to this list. Report Link Sarbanes-Oxley’s 90-Day Statute of Limitations Not Triggered By Conditional Firing.Ogletree Deakins - May 20, 2009 An employee alleging a violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) must file a complaint within 90 days from the date of that alleged violation. That 90-day period begins to run from the date on which the complainant knows or reasonably should know that the complained-of act has occurred. In whistleblower cases under SOX, the 90-day statute of limitations runs from the date on which the employee receives “final, definitive, and unequivocal notice” of an adverse employment decision. As defined in SOX, the term “unequivocal” means that the notice is not ambiguous, and is free from misleading possibilities. Report Link Sarbanes-Oxley Determination Precludes Later Discrimination Lawsuit Involving Same Facts.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 05, 2009 In a case of first impression, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia has issued a decision that demonstrates the significance of claims brought under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). An employee may be precluded by statute from filing claims of discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act against her former employer, where those claims are based on the same facts that supported her earlier, unsuccessful administrative SOX claim, the Third Circuit has ruled in an unpublished opinion. Report Link NEW WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES WHO REPORT SUSPECTED MISUSE OF STIMULUS FUNDS.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - April 09, 2009 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is infusing billions of dollars into the private sector. To ensure that the monies are actually used for their intended purpose, Congress added a powerful whistleblower provision into the law. Report Link New Rules for Government Contracting Put More Responsibilities on Contractors.Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC - April 06, 2009 On March 31, 2009, the Federal Register (Volume 74, Number 60) published new rules governing projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Several of these rules provide the government with additional rights, and others charge contractors with additional responsibilities. Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before June 1, 2009 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. Here is what you should know. Report Link Department of Labor Decision May Expand SOX Whistleblower Protection.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 26, 2009 A recent decision of the U.S. Department of Labor may expand whistleblower liability under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“Sarbanes-Oxley” or “SOX”) to private entities engaged in business with publicly-traded companies. Sarbanes-Oxley applies to companies listed on publicly-traded stock exchanges and, in section 806, protects employees who report certain wrongdoing to their superiors from retaliation. Report Link Recovery Act Includes Broad New Whistleblower Provisions.Baker Hostetler LLP - March 18, 2009 According to its preamble, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“the Recovery Act”) is intended to promote job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed and fiscal stabilization. But employers should be aware that the Recovery Act also creates powerful “whistleblower” protection for employees. The Act’s whistleblower provisions apply to employers that receive a contract, subcontract, grant or other payment funded in whole or in part by the federal stimulus package. Report Link Stimulus Package Extends Whistleblower Protections to Employees.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - March 17, 2009 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), recently signed into law by President Obama, provides for unprecedented levels of investment in infrastructure, energy, and research. While the government's outlay of nearly $500 billion in stimulus spending offers many businesses the prospect of brighter economic days, it is important for businesses who receive those funds to know that the ARRA contains sweeping new protections for public and private employees who blow the whistle on gross mismanagement or waste of covered funds, creation of public health or safety risks, or violation of laws or regulations relating to the grant of the funds. Report Link Economic Stimulus Package Likely to Increase Whistleblower Litigation.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 09, 2009 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), signed by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009, contains broad new protections against retaliation for whistleblowers. The protections are greater than those provided under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and state laws, such as the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act. Report Link Whistleblower Provisions in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act May Impact Employers.Ford & Harrison LLP - February 27, 2009 The recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) contains whistleblower provisions that apply to non-federal employers who will receive funds under the ARRA. These provisions prohibit the employers from discharging, demoting, or discriminating against an employee for disclosing, to a covered entity, (1) gross mismanagement of an agency contract or grant relating to covered funds; (2) a gross waste of covered funds; (3) a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety related to the implementation or use of covered funds; (4) an abuse of authority related to the implementation or use of covered funds; or (5) a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to an agency contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract) or grant, awarded or issued relating to covered funds. All qualified employers are required post notice of the rights and remedies provided under this section. Report Link First Circuit Court Sets Standard for Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 19, 2009 In a decision of first impression in the Circuit, but resembling those of other courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has found a plaintiff’s allegations of shareholder fraud were not “objectively reasonable” under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX” or “Act”), and so has affirmed summary judgment for the employer. Report Link Billing Irregularities Not Enough for SOX Civil Whistleblower Protection, Fourth Circuit Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 16, 2008 An employee who was fired after reporting alleged billing irregularities is not protected by the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled. The law’s civil whistleblower provisions protect employees who “definitively and specifically alleg[e] mail or wire fraud” that they “reasonably believe” violates federal law prohibiting fraud against shareholders. Allegations of billing discrepancies, without more, do not meet this standard, the Court said. Platone v. Dep’t of Labor, No. 07-1635 (4th Cir. Dec. 3, 2008). The Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Report Link Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - October 13, 2008 On August 14, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA or "Act"). Prompted by several well-publicized recalls of children's toys, this legislation dramatically expands the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission) and introduces new responsibilities for the manufacturers and retailers of consumer products. Of particular interest to employers, Section 219 of the CPSIA affords new whistleblower protections to the employees of manufacturers, labelers, distributors, and retailers of consumer products. "Consumer Products" include any article, or component part thereof, intended for use, consumption, or enjoyment by a consumer in the home or school or in recreation. "Consumer Products" do not include those items regulated by governmental agencies other than the Commission, such as tobacco, motor vehicles, pesticides, aircrafts, boats, drugs, cosmetics, and food (15 U.S.C. § 2052). Employees of covered employers will now have a private right of action and be able to collect back pay and other compensatory damages should their employer take adverse action against them because of their whistleblowing. Report Link International Legal Trends for Encouraging Employee Whistleblowing.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - October 07, 2008 In a recent report, the International Chamber of Commerce's (ICC) Commission on Anti Corruption ("the Commission") offered its view that "fraud remains one of the most problematic issues for business worldwide, no matter the company's country of operation, industry sector or size."1 Despite significant investment in controls to stem economic crime, companies are still reporting little or no noticeable return on their investment and a level of economic crime that has not significantly decreased. Report Link Awful New Whistleblower Law Affects Huge Swath of Employers.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - October 02, 2008 With almost no fanfare, Congress has stomped and gouged employers – again. It has passed a new law that will affect a significant proportion of the American economy and create new "rights" (translation: opportunities to sue) for employees. Called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Safety Improvement Act), the law provides broad protections to employees of manufacturers, private labelers, distributors, and retailers, who make complaints relating to consumer product safety. Report Link Fourth Circuit Affirms Limitation on Whistleblower Status Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 26, 2008 Refusing to accept that any failure to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (“GAAP”) constitutes a per se violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 whistleblower provision, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has dismissed the case of David Welch, former Chief Financial Officer of Cardinal Bankshares, against his former employer. Welch v. Chao, No. 07-1684 (4th Cir. Aug. 5, 2008). The whistleblower provision protects those who report activity they “reasonably believe” violates a provision of the law related to fraud against shareholders. The Court found that Welch’s complaints did not constitute “protected activity” under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). Report Link New Reason for Employees to Whistle – Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP - September 08, 2008 The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, recently signed into law by President Bush, provides a new cause of action for “whistleblowers” who engage in protected activity related to defective products. Report Link Employees Gain Whistleblower Protection Under New Consumer Product Safety Law.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 29, 2008 Whistleblower protection was given to employees in the retail and manufacturing sectors under the new federal Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (H.R. 4040) (“Act”). The Act, signed by President George W. Bush on August 14, 2008, is the most comprehensive overhaul of consumer product safety laws since the Consumer Product Safety Act was passed in 1972. The large number of consumer product recalls in 2007 (448, about half were of products for children) prompted Congress to take action. Most provisions of the Act, including the whistleblower protection provisions, are effective immediately. Report Link SOX Applied to Employee Working Overseas.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 01, 2008 As the contingent of globally-mobile employees increases, the issue of whether American law, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, applies to American employees while working overseas is receiving greater attention by the courts. Report Link Fifth Circuit Provides Guidance on Whistleblower Claims Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act.Phelps Dunbar LLP - February 05, 2008 When most people think of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, they think of a law regulating corporate governance, accounting, and financial disclosure. But public and private companies should remember that Sarbanes-Oxley is also an important employment statute. Report Link Changes In Obscure Law Could Affect Your BusinessFisher & Phillips, LLP - September 05, 2007 The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) is a law that doesn't receive a lot of coverage, but which potentially affects many companies. Because of recent changes that broaden the STAA, a lot more companies could be receiving unpleasant lessons in the statute. Report Link The Critical Role Of HR In Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - September 05, 2007 Human Resources managers should never underestimate the importance of their role in Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. Too often, publicly-traded companies focus their Sarbanes-Oxley compliance efforts on financial reporting only, i.e., as a function of the Accounting and Legal departments. But the full participation of Human Resources can be critical in the corporation's efforts to comply with SOX. Report Link DOL's Administrative Review Board Decision Limits Whistleblower Status Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 20, 2007 The case of David Welch, former Chief Financial Officer of Cardinal Bankshares (and perhaps the most well-known whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), has taken another turn as it wends its way through the U.S. Department of Labor and court system. According to a recent ruling from the DOL's Administrative Review Board ("ARB"), allegations of accounting irregularities, in the absence of claims of fraud or violations of the securities laws, are not enough to confer whistleblower status on Welch under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Report Link Another Whistleblower Law To Worry About.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - May 03, 2007 Whistleblowers now have a much bigger incentive to cry foul if they believe your company – or you – are pulling one over on the IRS. Under a tough new law passed by Congress in December 2006, whistleblowers now have a statutory right to collect a large bounty if they report tax fraud and the IRS ends up collecting money. This new law will undoubtedly lead to more claims filed by disgruntled employees who believe they have evidence of foul play in your workplace. Report Link Employee Whistleblowers Face Harder Time Bringing False Claims Act Cases.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 09, 2007 Are government contractors better protected from qui tam lawsuites under the FCA since recent Supreme Court decisions? Report Link Hospitality: Coast Guard Gets Complaint, Employee Gets Fired, Riverboat Gets Sued.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - February 13, 2007 Whistleblower claims have been on the rise for several years. A host of state and federal laws protect employees against reprisal for reporting allegedly illegal conduct by their employers to the appropriate governmental agencies. But a riverboat casino recently was hit with a case alleging a new twist in these laws. Several employees complained to the Coast Guard about a decision made by the Coast Guard, not the employer. Report Link DOL Clarifies Protected Activity in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Cases.Ford & Harrison LLP - October 06, 2006 In an important decision helping to define the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) whistleblower provisions, the Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board (ARB) has reversed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), finding that an airline employee did not engage in protected activity under SOX when she complained to her employer about what the ARB described as how the “company spends its money” or its “ability to collect a debt.” See Platone v. FLYi, ARB Case. No. 04-153. The ARB’s decision provides some much needed guidance regarding what constitutes protected activity under SOX. Report Link Stage of SOX Whistleblower Proceedings May Affect Preliminary Reinstatement as Remedy.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 13, 2006 Reinstatement is one of the most significant remedies provided for by the civil whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Two decisions in 2006 have helped to define whether a successful complainant in a SOX whistleblower action can enforce a preliminary order of reinstatement by the Department of Labor. Report Link Supreme Court Limits Availability of First Amendment Protection in Public Sector Litigation over Retaliation Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 12, 2006 The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that when public employees make statements as part of their official duties, their speech is not protected under the First Amendment, and they are not immune from corrective action based on those statements. Report Link Supreme Court Holds That Restricting Speech That Is Undertaken as a Part of a Public Employee's Professional Responsibilities Does Not Violate the First Amendment (pdf).Phelps Dunbar LLP - May 31, 2006 On May 30, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed a
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding in Gracetti v.
Ceballos, No. 04-473, 2006 WL 1458026 (U.S.). The
issue in Gracetti was whether the First Amendment
protected a public employee’s speech when it was
expressed as part of the public employee’s employment
duties. The Court’s ruling is applicable only to public
employers (i.e. states, cities, counties, parishes or other
government owned entities such as community
hospitals). It has no application to private, nongovernment
entities or businesses. Report Link Toward The End of the French Exception?: Overcoming the Challenges of Establishing a Global "Whistleblower" Hotline.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - December 09, 2005 Publicly-traded companies covered by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX") – the U.S. corporate-governance law enacted in the wake of scandals such as Enron Corp. - are required to make available to employees an anonymous whistleblower reporting system (commonly called a hotline). Report Link Administrative Judge Dismisses Sarbanes-Oxley Complaint of Employee Previously Reinstated Under Preliminary DOL Order.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 28, 2005 The Sarbanes-Oxley Act delegates enforcement authority to the Department of Labor through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Since the enactment of SOX, employers have been concerned about the broad remedial powers of OSHA to address alleged violations of the Act's whistleblower protection provision. Among others, OSHA has the power to order reinstatement of an alleged whistleblower prior to a full hearing on the merits of a case. Report Link Vice President's Reinstatement in Limbo after Law Judge Dismisses Underlying SOX Charges.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 08, 2005 Since the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), employers have been concerned about the broad remedial powers of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for addressing alleged SOX violations. The SOX legislation delegated enforcing authority under the Act to the Department of Labor through OSHA, which has included OSHA's power to order reinstatement of an alleged whistleblower prior to a full hearing on the merits of a case. Report Link Court Strikes Whistleblower's Claims for Punitive Damages and Jury Trial Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 23, 2005 Adding to the small but growing body of federal court decisions interpreting the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX Act) is a recent Texas case. The decision from the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas is significant in that it favorably addresses questions of bottom line impact for employers: the plaintiff's right to a jury trial, and the scope of available "special damages," i.e., damages for reputational injury, exemplary and punitive damages. Report Link Court Enforces DOL Order of Reinstatement of Former Employees Under Sarbanes-Oxley.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 10, 2005 A recent federal court decision under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ordering the reinstatement of a former employee illustrates the broad remedial powers that the Act has granted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Report Link Sarbanes-Oxley: lessons for private employers.Jones Walker - December 15, 2004 Imagine that you work for a private, family-run business — your family’s business. Let’s picture you as the bookkeeper and your husband (fond of red suits and ever reluctant to trim his long white beard) as the master toy craftsman and sole delivery person. With a few good hands, all of whom are very small (you provide reasonable accommodations so they can do their jobs) and like to wear funny hats and shoes (nothing obscene or violating your grooming policy — hard to complain since you allow the beard), your business is by all measures successful. Report Link A New Era for Whistleblowers.Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - February 24, 2004 Employment law concepts and protections historically mirror changes in societal and business norms. Report Link Former Bank CFO Makes Case That Discharge Violated Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 11, 2004 In reportedly the first successful whistleblower claim under the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act, or Sarbanes-Oxley Act, an administrative law judge has ruled that a former bank chief financial officer was unlawfully terminated after protesting suspected insider trading and other financial practices. Report Link OSHA Issues Revised Whistleblower Investigation Manual Detailing Procedures for Complaints Under Sarbanes-Oxley and Thirteen Other Federal Statutes.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 18, 2003 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued a revised Whistleblower Investigation Manual to provide guidance to agency staff about handling discrimination complaints under various federal statutes, including Title VIII of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Report Link DOL Adopts Interim Final Rule Implementing Whistleblower Protection Provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley Act [PDF File, p10].Jones Walker - July 24, 2003 The proposed regulations are to be effective on the first day of the first plan year that begins on or after January 1, 2004. However, plan sponsors should make changes now to include the new tax credit information and cease using the 1986 model notice (if they have not already done so). Report Link Administrative Law Judge Decides Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision Should Not Be Applied Retroactively.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 03, 2003 A U. S. Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge has issued what appears to be the first decision under the employee protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Report Link Corporate Wrongdoing Legislation Gives Employees Whistleblower Protection Against Discrimination and Harassment. Jackson Lewis LLP - September 17, 2002 The corporate fraud scandals of recent months have prompted federal legislation to give added rights to employees who blow the whistle on corporate wrongdoing at publicly traded companies. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, signed by President Bush on July 30, protects employees who disclose information or participate in an investigation or proceeding related to alleged violations of securities laws, SEC rules, and federal laws pertaining to shareholder fraud.
|
Employment Law Seminars
Top Tips to Protect Your Workplace From Violence
Webinar
November 10, 2009 HR Learning Center LLCWorkplace Change in the Obama EraColumbus
November 10, 2009 Littler2009 Employment Practices ConferenceUniversal City
November 10, 2009 Ballard RosenbergFall Employment Law Mini-SeriesTysons Corner
November 10, 2009 LittlerBusiness Continuity During the H1N1 OutbreakWebinar
November 10, 2009 Littler"Action Steps for Upcoming Open Enrollment" Free E-BriefingWebinar
November 10, 2009 Ford & HarrisonLabor and Employment Law SeminarLos Angeles
November 11, 2009 OgletreeHR Network 2009 | RestonReston
November 12, 2009 CooleyThe Labor & Employment Compliance Costs of Federal ContractingWebinar
November 12, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyLa Jolla
November 12, 2009 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds