Case Digest on Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC

Publicly traded companies are prohibited from retaliating against employees who report what they reasonably believe to be instances of criminal fraud or securities law violations. (Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Trevor Murray worked for UBS, a multinational investment and financial services company. He was responsible for researching UBS's commercial mortgage-backed securities.

Murray filed a whistleblower action in district court, alleging that his former employer, UBS, terminated his employment after he informed his supervisors that two leaders of the UBS trading desk were engaging in what he believed was illegal and unethical conduct.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Whether a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a "retaliatory intent" as part of his case in chief, or is the lack of "retaliatory intent" part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof?

RULING OF THE CASE:

The Court, through Justice Sotomayor, held that to use the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, whistleblowers have to prove that their protected activity was a factor that contributed to their employer's unfavorable personnel action. However, they do not need to confirm that the employer acted with retaliatory intent.

IMPACT TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM:

This case emphasized that even after a whistleblower employee proves a prima facie case that his protected activity was a contributing factor in an adverse employment action, an employer can still avoid liability if it can prove it would have taken the same action in the absence of the employee's protected activity.