California Labor Code section 1102.5 authorizes employees to recover attorneys’ fees if they bring a successful action. However, the employer may preclude an award of attorney’s fees to the employee by establishing the same-decision affirmative defense outlined in Labor Code section 1102.6.
Continue Reading Court of Appeals Decision May Offer Employers Relief for Attorneys’ Fees Under California Labor Code Section 1102.5
In September 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced three separate enforcement orders reflecting a renewed interest in and scrutiny of provisions in employment agreements and separation agreements. These three settled cases resulted in cease-and-desist orders, fines, and other sanctions against a registered investment adviser, a public company, and a privately held company in
On Jan. 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001, 2022 WL 244731 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022), clarifying the legal standard for whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 (“Section 1102.5”). Importantly, the Court’s ruling shifts the evidentiary burdens for these claims,
Effective January 1, 2021, plaintiffs who bring whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 will be eligible to recover attorneys’ fees if they prevail. Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who (1) discloses information the employee reasonably believes constitutes unlawful conduct to: a government agency/law enforcement, a person
On Monday, June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) prohibits retaliation against internal whistleblowers or only covers individuals who report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC).
This question has divided practitioners and lower courts alike since Dodd-Frank’s passage in 2010. As reported in our
Introduction
On March 8, 2017, in Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc., No.15-cv-17352 (9th Cir., March 8, 2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss a whistleblower claim brought under the Dodd-Frank Act’s (“DFA”)’s anti-retaliation provision.
In a 2-1 decision, the majority endorsed the
Recent SEC Fines
On Aug. 16, 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it had issued its second fine in as many weeks concerning a company’s use of severance agreements that contain confidentiality and/or covenant-not-to-sue or release provisions that allegedly violate SEC whistleblower Rules.
These recent SEC charges arise from SEC Rules
On July 15, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court settled the debate over whether employees who are responsible for monitoring and reporting employer compliance may seek whistleblower protection under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. § 34:19-1 et seq. (“CEPA”), and if so, under what circumstances. Ultimately, the court in Lippman v. Ethicon
Written by Michael J. Slocum and Eric B. Sigda.
A district court recently ruled that an employee simply engaging in activity protected by the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provision is insufficient to gain whistleblower protection. The employee must first qualify as a whistleblower within the Act’s definition. The authors of this Greenberg Traurig Alert discuss
In a highly-anticipated decision having far-ranging impact for privately owned employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the whistleblower protections under § 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) extend not only to employees of publicly-held companies, but also to the employees of the privately-held “contractors” who provide services to public companies. Lawson v.