Supreme Court Declines To Broaden Whistleblower Protections (reuters.com) 61
The U.S. Supreme Court this week refused to broaden protections for corporate insiders who call out misconduct, ruling they must take claims of wrongdoing to the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to be shielded against retaliation. From a report: The justices ruled 9-0 in favor of Digital Realty Trust, throwing out a lawsuit brought against the California-based real estate trust by a fired former employee who had reported alleged wrongdoing only internally and not to the SEC. The 2010 Wall Street reform law known as the Dodd-Frank Act is unambiguous in offering no protection from retaliation such as firing or demotion to employees who report claims of securities law violations only in-house, the court ruled.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Good to know, report it quickly to the SEC if you want whisleblower protections. And if you wait until your fired, you prob won't be protected.
Maybe this will make people report the crimes quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a monetary reward for those who report SEC violations if the violations are ultimately proved true and defendants are convicted.
citation [sec.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this will make people report the crimes quicker.
It also gives people an incentive to report quicker so that they are reporting, and not being reported on. When federal prosecutors cut a deal, they usually offer it to the first person to rat out their co-conspirators. If you are at the back of the line you are much more likely to go to jail, even if you are willing to cooperate.
I once listed to a talk by a DOJ prosecutor. He said that when a price-fixing/insider-trading/fraud scheme falls apart, they will sometimes get calls from participants within mi
BCC Exists for a Reason (Score:2)
Good to know, report it quickly to the SEC if you want whisleblower protections.
Hell, just always report any such behavior internally via email, creating a paper trail, and BCC it to the SEC to get whistleblower protection.
Re:A good ruling for certain (Score:4, Informative)
Report it quickly to the SEC if you want the SOX whistleblower protection. If you wait on reporting it, you may not get whistleblower protections for waiting too long.
Maybe this will make people report crimes quicker and not wait until they are fired for a lawsuit, screwing over investors.
https://www.sec.gov/whistleblo... [sec.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the result, but the result is correct: if the law as written protects specifically people who report misconduct to the SEC, then the way the law is written is the way it should be interpreted.
I understand that it would be nice to protect people who report wrongdoing to their own company, but if that's not what the law says, the courts should not be allowed to pretend it does because "it would be nice if it had said that."
I'm baffled, however, as to why Anonymous Coward says "it shows Dodd Frank nee
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those two men were the staunchest opponents of doing anything to fix the problems in the financial markets before the 2008 meltdown. Both profited handsomely from that opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the Dodd-Frank bill is named for Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, it is hard for me to believe
Why should we care whether something is it hard for you to believe?
What the Dodd Frank act does is of interest. What you do or don't believe is not.
I assume, however, assume from what you post that you think that the problem with Dodd Frank is that it does not go far enough in protecting the public, and thus that you hold the opposite opinion from that of the original anonymous coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
but it also shows why Dodd-Frank needs to go. It was a reactionary bit of legislation by the Dems that really isn't needed anymore
Bullshit.
None of the problems that caused the financial meltdown have been fixed.
Because even if all the Wall Street bankers have become saints since '08 (Ahahahaha, I kill me!), along will come some 26 year-old newly minted Harvard MBA who figures out that if he just bends the rules a little, he'll get his $10 million bonus at the end of the year. And he does so.
The other MBAs see it and THEY bend the rules. And with everybody bending rules, they'll have to bend them more to make their 8 figure bonuses.
Ri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
9-0 vote shows how Trump has stacked the court. He should've never appointed that batty ginsburg.
I assume that this is intended as some sort of deadpan sarcasm. The overall cluelessness of Anonymous Cowards on /. makes it hard to tell-- Poe's law, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
9-0 vote shows how Trump has stacked the court. He should've never appointed that batty ginsburg.
I assume that this is intended as some sort of deadpan sarcasm.
I have a poor sarcasm detector, but even I knew it was a joke. RBG was appointed by Bill Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
when you think "they couldn't actually be that stupid"... think again.
"See something, Say something!" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or... follow the law and go to the SEC, which is the black letter law of Dodd-Frank.
(Of course, how many of us know Dodd-Frank?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Of course, how many of us know Dodd-Frank?)
Didn't he pitch for the Dallas Cowboys?
Re: (Score:2)
Except most people would assume that an observed violation is unintentional and would therefore report internally first, with the expectation that the company would fix it. Going to the SEC is going to be what people think of when they have evidence of a willful violation.
This ruling just makes the employer/employee relationship more antagonsitic.
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling just makes the employer/employee relationship more antagonsitic.
No, Dodd-Frank did that, in black letters. This just reminds us.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why the best way to handle this shit is with an anonymous letter to the CEO, newspaper, and whatever government authorities are needed. Like local and state police come to mind. Include copies of any evidence that can't be traced back to you.
Just make sure you don't do something stupid like print it at your office or mail it from there. Best yet is to mail it from a neighboring town that you don't live in.
Then sit back and watch the fun.
corruption is through to the core (Score:1)
corruption is through to the core
whistle-blowers should NOT be able to be retaliated agains. No commoner would have the common knowledge to whistle-blow to the SEC. Furthermore, how will the SEC protect the individual, or compensate them for being terminated?
This is a person acting for the best interest of the company AND THE SHAREHOLDERS by reporting corruption internally.
This person should deserve protections.
Re:corruption is through to the core (Score:4)
You're absolutely right. However, the Supreme Court is not the proper venue for that. It's the responsibility of the Legislative and Executive branches.
Kneel before Zod and ask permission! (Score:2)
If you want this included in the law, talk to your representatives to change it.
Stuff isn't illegal if it isn't illegal. This is actually a good principle.
I'm in a Red State (Score:2)
That seems like the right result (Score:3)
As part of the incentive for whistleblowers to come forward, Dodd-Frank's bounty provisions [sec.gov] award 10-30% of the money recovered from a securities violation to the whistleblower that first reported the violation to the SEC, for sanctions of $1 million or more.
If the employee doesn't think the situation is clear-cut enough to have a shot at cashing in on that bounty and yet chooses to raise it internally in the company, there's no reason the government should be in the position of protecting their job. To do otherwise would at the very least create a perverse incentive for employees to try to blackmail their employers over conduct they know or suspect isn't really a SEC violation but will cost the company a lot of time and money to defend to reach that result.
Worst possible ruling for businesses and workers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This was actually the worst ruling the private sector could get. Now it is explicit that a corporation cannot rely on its employees to in any way report errors or criminal activity by other employees to get in front of an SEC violation. Think that through for a moment. There is now a disincentive for internal reporting. If I was an owner or board member of any kind of financial institution, I would be pissed! Why it's bad for workers seems obvious.
Any company that is really interested in having employees report suspected violations internally should set up a way for that to happen anonymously. Every publicly-traded company I've ever worked for has provided that.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame the ruling, blame the companies that put profit over ethics. If a company actually rewarded employees for whistleblowing, instead of punishing them by firing them, then the company should not be worried about the fiscal incentive to report to the SEC instead of internally. A company willing to fire an employee rather than fix internal criminal activity isn't worried about the incentive effect of it's behavior on other companies' employees.
As another poster commented, most companies have intern
It cuts both ways (Score:1)
This was actually the worst ruling the private sector could get. Now it is explicit that a corporation cannot rely on its employees to in any way report errors or criminal activity by other employees to get in front of an SEC violation. Think that through for a moment. There is now a disincentive for internal reporting. If I was an owner or board member of any kind of financial institution, I would be pissed! Why it's bad for workers seems obvious.
This cuts both ways.
An employee cannot leave a company and *say* that the company is in violation, they have to back it up with actual charges.
There's been too many "guilt by accusation" cases recently, and while many accused admitted to the crime, some did not.
Take for example [White House Aide] Rob Porter accused of domestic abuse, which he denies. His wife posted a photo of herself with a black eye to the newspapers, but didn't go to the police. A black eye should be a slam-dunk for domestic abuse and re
Re: (Score:2)
An employee cannot leave a company and *say* that the company is in violation, they have to back it up with actual charges.
Okay, that seems reasonable.
There's been too many "guilt by accusation" cases recently, and while many accused admitted to the crime, some did not.
Wait, where are you going with this?
Take for example [White House Aide] Rob Porter accused of domestic abuse, which he denies. His wife posted a photo of herself with a black eye to the newspapers, but didn't go to the police. A black eye should be a slam-dunk for domestic abuse and restraining order and yet... she didn't do that at the time with photographic evidence?
Nobody should have to explain to you why. You should be able to look it up and read and understand why women often don't report rapes even when they have evidence, so I'm not going to explain it to you. It's 2018, you should know how to Google by now just like you shouldn't need anyone to hold your pecker for you while you piss.
Take also for example Senator Al Franken, who used to be a professional comedian and was accused of making women feel "uncomfortable", but whose image was clearly a staged comedic incident completely in line with what many other comedians do. And making someone "feel uncomfortable" is not the same as assault, battery, or rape.
Al Franken chose to step down while even some women in his party thought he should not because he felt that he had a r
Re: (Score:2)
This was actually the worst ruling the private sector could get. Now it is explicit that a corporation cannot rely on its employees to in any way report errors or criminal activity by other employees to get in front of an SEC violation.
So what? They don't care. They would like to destroy every small business if possible, because it's easier to "regulate" a handful of corporations (which get to walk off with all the profits) than a soup of small mom-and-pop businesses. Gentrification works at all levels.
Correction: CONGRESS did not broaden ... (Score:3)
The headline is misleading -- it was Congress that wrote the law, where the term "whistleblower" is specifically defined to only include those who report misconduct to the SEC. The Supreme Court simply confirmed that we are governed by the law as written.
Note that elsewhere in Dodd–Frank (in the part dealing with reporting to the CFPB) and in Sorbanes–Oxley whistleblowers are defined differently, so that even those that only report misconduct internally are protected.
Why did it reach Supreme Court? (Score:1)
Why did the Supreme Court have to bother with this, instead of the matter ending at the very bottom of the judicial "food chain"?
Maybe, the law is deficient in this regard — not surprising, considering the majority of lawmakers in 2010 — but the courts don't write laws, they only interpret, what Congress has written.
Meh...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And why did it reach Slashdot's front-page?
Submit an encrypted report to the SEC (Score:2)
Apply this to the NSA/CIA/FBI (Score:2)
If you are an agency employee and you observe wrongdoing, raising your grievance internally is not sufficient - you must report it to the authorities, aka the citizens of the country.