Bloomberg BNA’s Corporate Law & Accountability Report is available on the Corporate Law Resource Center. This news service keeps corporate practitioners informed of legal developments of...
By Yin Wilczek
March 4 — Deepening the split between the federal district courts, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri March 2 dismissed a would-be whistle-blower's retaliation claim because he had not first reported his suspicions to the SEC.
Judge Ronnie L. White wrote that the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act states that a whistle-blower must first make a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission to qualify for anti-retaliation protection.
One of the most contentious issues under Dodd-Frank's whistle-blower provisions is whether informants must first tip off the SEC before they may file anti-retaliation lawsuits against their employers.
The question has divided the federal district courts and even judges within the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
David Marshall, Washington-based partner at Katz, Marshall & Banks LLP who represents whistle-blowers, told Bloomberg BNA that the courts' continuing division poses a serious problem, not only for informants but also for their employers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit thus far is the only federal appeals court to rule on the issue. It concluded in July 2013 that a former G.E. Energy (USA) LLC employee, Khaled Asadi, couldn't sue his employer under Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provisions because he did not first approach the SEC.
In the wake of the ruling, the SEC has filed amicus briefs at the appellate level—most recently at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—to clarify that under its rules, informants don't have to report potential misconduct to the agency to be protected.
In the case at issue, Fred Lutzeier, a former director at the Internal Audit Group in Citigroup Management Corp.'s Missouri offices, alleged among other claims that he was fired, after one year of service, as retaliation for whistle-blowing.
The employer, on the other hand, asserted that Lutzeier was terminated as part of a global re-organization. It also argued that the former director did not qualify as a whistle-blower, citing Asadi.
The court adopted the Fifth Circuit's reasoning in Asadi. Among other rationale, it agreed with Asadi that adopting a broader interpretation of Dodd-Frank would render the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act's anti-retaliation provision moot.
“That is, plaintiffs would not have an incentive to file a Sarbanes-Oxley claim, which has a shorter statute of limitations and single (not double) back pay when plaintiffs could bring a Dodd-Frank Act claim instead,” it said.
Marshall said the court's decision reflected “what is clearly a minority view in the growing number of decisions that are rendered on this question”.
One problem with the Asadi position is that it encourages whistle-blowers to circumvent internal reporting mechanisms and run straight to the commission, Marshall said. He noted that as the SEC pointed out in its amicus briefs, the bounty program was structured to preserve internal reporting so that problems uncovered by employees can be effectively handled and addressed by companies, perhaps without ever involving the commission.
Most employees continue to report problems internally, and they need certainty in the law as to whether they will be protected against retaliation, Marshall continued. “Frankly, I’m glad to see the division” in the courts continuing so that the question can make “its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where I'm confident internal whistle-blowers will win protection simply because the need for that protection is so overwhelming,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Yin Wilczek in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kristyn Hyland at email@example.com
The decision is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Lutzeier_v_Citigroup_Inc_No_414CV183_RLW_2015_BL_54906_ED_Mo_Mar_.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)