New Member Promotion >>> Save $15 and get a SHRM tote!
Giving applicants with criminal backgrounds a fair chance at employment can be good for business.
Plus all the HR resources you need to be more efficient and effective this fall!
Apply for the SHRM Certification Exam and begin advancing your career.
Learn how to make the business case for diversity, October 25-27.
A federal appeals court decision will make it much easier to bring whistle-blowing lawsuits and should be an impetus for employers to adopt whistle-blowing policies, Steven Pearlman, an attorney with Proskauer in Chicago, told SHRM Online.
“The stakes have really gotten much higher,” added Philip Berkowitz, an attorney with Littler in New York City, who said companies should have protocols in place to investigate internal whistle-blowing complaints.
Circuit Court Split
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 10, 2015, in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy, No. 14-4626 (2015), that the Dodd-Frank Act does not only protect employees discharged for reporting violations to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The law also protects those who report violations internally.
However, the 5th Circuit held in Asadi v. G.E. Energy United States, 720 F.3d 620 (2013), that only those reporting violations to the SEC are protected by Dodd-Frank. The split at the appellate court level makes it likely that the Supreme Court will review the 2nd Circuit decision, Berkowitz said.
The fraud-based whistle-blowing claims that would typically have to be filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) may now, in the 2nd Circuit, be filed in court under Dodd-Frank for more generous remedies than SOX offers, he noted. Under Dodd-Frank, there is double back pay, remedies for emotional distress and payment of attorneys’ fees. Plus, the statute of limitations is much longer under Dodd-Frank than SOX—six to 10 years versus 180 days.
Incidentally, now an employer need not be a publicly traded company itself for the prohibitions on retaliating against whistle-blowers to apply, he elaborated. If an organization does business with a company that’s publicly traded, Dodd-Frank’s prohibitions on retaliation against whistle-blowers cover that entity as well, Berkowitz said, citing Lawson v. FMR, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014). So, if an accounting or law firm does business with a publicly traded company, its employees can bring a Dodd-Frank whistle-blower claim.
A whistle-blowing protection policy can be Exhibit A when someone sues claiming retaliation, according to Pearlman.
The policy should include:
“The risks are higher with the new decision,” Pearlman said, calling a stand-alone whistle-blower policy “a protective measure that inures to the benefit of a company.”
Employers need to be “extra vigilant—listening, training, putting in place protocols for carrying out internal investigations,” Berkowitz said.
Managers need to be trained on how to recognize and respond to a whistle-blowing complaint. Appropriate people, such as those in HR and compliance, need to be notified in response to a complaint. A thorough investigation protected by the attorney-client privilege needs to be conducted and well-documented. Evidence should be preserved, and by all means, avoid retaliation, Berkowitz recommended.
And remediate if there was wrongdoing, he said, noting, “How you respond will be at the center of a lawsuit.”
Allen Smith, J.D., is the manager of workplace law content for SHRM. Follow him @SHRMlegaleditor.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies