Jackson Lewis attorneys Paul Holdsworth and Matthew Nieman have authored a compelling analysis of Virginia’s 2020 Whistleblower Protection Law, reflecting on its significant impact over the past four years. This legislation has profoundly affected employers across the state. Dive into their article to explore the key issues, court rulings, and unresolved questions surrounding this important
Whistleblower
The Importance of Whistleblower Protection and Wellbeing in the Age of Mental Health Awareness
There are countless examples in recent news highlighting the potential for far-reaching consequences when wrongdoing goes unchecked, and when whistleblowers face unbridled public scrutiny. Safety hazards could result in serious injuries or even further loss of life and financial penalties and reputational damage could be significant. By protecting whistleblowers, taking their concerns seriously, and even…
Pennsylvania Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Whistleblower Case
Whistleblower claims of all types generally require proof of three elements; a complaint of conduct believed to be unlawful (protected activity), some form of discipline (an adverse action), and proof that the adverse action was motivated by the protected activity (causation). Oftentimes, the existence of an adverse action (such as termination) is undisputed. In whistleblower…
New Law Rewarding Whistleblowers May Lead to Substantial Increase in Whistleblower Claims
In late December 2022, in conjunction with an omnibus spending bill, Congress passed the Anti-Money Laundering Whistleblower Improvement Act, which President Biden signed into law on December 29, 2022. This law permits whistleblowers to receive 10% to 30% of any monetary sanction the government imposes over $1 million for money laundering. Money laundering is…
Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling Against Illinois Employee Who Refused to Participate in Sale of Product Banned in New York
A recent Seventh Circuit decision interpreting Illinois law affirmed the district court’s ruling that an employee’s refusal to engage in activity illegal in New York, but not in Illinois, was neither protected under the Illinois Whistleblower Act (“IWA”) nor under a common-law retaliatory discharge theory.
In Perez v. Staples Contract & Commercial, LLC, Perez,…
Goodbye to McDonnell Douglas Under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act?
On April 6, 2022, Minnesota’s Supreme Court in Lori Dowling Hanson v. State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources affirmed the lower courts’ summary dismissal of a Minnesota Whistleblower Act (“MWA”) claim brought by a former Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) employee Lori Dowling Hanson (“Hanson”). The case left unanswered the fate of McDonnell Douglas…
Refreshing Whistleblower Processes for the Remote Workplace: Best Practices
At the onset of COVID in 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that over a three-month period, there were a deluge of tips, complaints and possible referrals to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). More recently, the SEC has reported record whistleblower awards. And although the extent to which remote work has contributed…
U.S. Supreme Declines to Resolve Circuit Split on False Claims Act Anti-Retaliation Provisions
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to settle a split among federal appeal courts on whether former employees are covered by whistleblower anti-retaliation protections contained in the False Claims Act (FCA). United States ex rel. David Felten v. William Beaumont Hosp., 993 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-443 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2022).…
Fifth Circuit Cases Underscore Need for Attention to Detail in Arbitration Agreements Covering Whistleblower Claims
In the last ten years alone, SCOTUS and Circuit Courts have shaped the way employers craft and use arbitration agreements with their workforce, and the trend shows no sign of slowing down. In the last few months, recent court decisions have reinforced the notion that employers must always be vigilant and review their agreements to…
Blowing The Whistle May Not Act As A Shield: The Consequences of Misconduct
That an employee may have engaged in protected activity under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) does not render their employer unable to address the employee’s subsequent misconduct or other inappropriate behavior. Employers retain the ability to take adverse employment action for legitimate reasons unrelated to an employee’s arguably protected activity under SOX. Mere protected activity,…