Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC.
The Supreme Court reviewed the requirements for whistleblower claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, focusing on whether retaliatory intent must be proven. The Court concluded that a whistleblower must show their protected activity was a contributing factor in adverse employment action, but not that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. The decision reversed the Second Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC.
The Court held that a whistleblower invoking § 1514A need not prove the employer acted with retaliatory intent, only that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
The case involves the procedural requirements for proving a whistleblower claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, specifically the burden-shifting framework.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The statute's mandatory burden-shifting framework does not lead to that result.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
The Court reviews and interprets the statutory requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, determining the correct legal standard for whistleblower claims.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: A whistleblower who invokes § 1514A must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer's unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that his employer acted with 'retaliatory intent.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that support the summary and concepts above.
Section 1514A(a)'s text does not reference or include a 'retaliatory intent' requirement.
The contributing-factor burden-shifting framework is meant to be plaintiff-friendly.
Showing that an employer acted with retaliatory animus is one way of proving that the protected activity was a contributing factor.
