In a decision that may have far-ranging impact for employers accused of retaliating against whistleblower-employees, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an employee whose evidence was “entirely circumstantial,” and who did not provide “any evidence” of his employer’s alleged retaliatory motive, nonetheless presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment. Araujo v. NJ Transit Rail Operations, Inc., No. 12-2148 (3rd Cir. February 19, 2013). While the Araujo decision itself comes specifically from the federal whistleblower laws applicable to the railroad industry, the Third Circuit’s analysis of the applicable legal burdens may well apply to employers in such diverse industries as commercial trucking, airlines, maritime, automobile manufacture, and consumer products generally, as well as any employer covered by Sarbanes-Oxley.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is seeking public comment on interim final rules that revise its regulations on the filing and handling of Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) whistleblower complaints.
There have been many significant legislative enactments in the last couple of years that are critical to employers (i.e., the ADA Amendments Act, the new health care law). The most recent enactment is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (commonly referred to as the Dodd-Frank Act or Dodd-Frank). We blogged about Dodd-Frank… Continue Reading
Lots of laws prohibit an employer from firing or taking some other adverse action against an employee based on the employee’s protected conduct, status, or activity. But what happens when you discover an employee’s misconduct only because he or she engaged in protected activity? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently answered… Continue Reading