The epoch times

Supreme Court to tackle whistleblower protections, maritime law disputes.

The ‌Supreme Court⁢ to Hear Cases on Maritime Law and⁣ Whistleblower ⁢Protections

The Supreme Court is gearing up for oral arguments on October 10th, with two cases in the spotlight. The first case, Murray v. UBS Securities ‌LLC, revolves around the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002, ‍which was enacted in response to⁣ corporate scandals like Enron. This law ‌safeguards whistleblowers ⁢from⁢ retaliation, but ​the ​question remains: how⁣ do whistleblowers prove retaliation?

Trevor Murray, a former UBS strategist, alleges that he ​was pressured‌ by ⁢company leaders to manipulate ‌his research. After ‍being fired in ‍2012, Murray took his case to a federal district⁣ court and ‌emerged victorious. However, the​ U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit overturned the judgment, agreeing with UBS that Murray needed to prove ‌retaliatory intent.

The Supreme Court is set to consider ⁣whether Mr. Murray had a burden to prove retaliatory intent or if the lack of that intent is part of the company’s defense. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act ‍states that the whistleblower’s action must be a “contributing factor” in the alleged “unfavorable personnel action.”
The logo of Swiss bank UBS​ is seen in Zurich, Switzerland, on Oct. 25, 2018. (Arnd Wiegmann/Reuters)

The employer can defend themselves by showing “clear and convincing evidence” that they would have taken​ the same action even ​without the employee’s involvement.

UBS argues that they terminated Mr.​ Murray ‌ due ⁣to significant financial difficulties and⁤ his position‌ becoming unnecessary. However, Mr. Murray maintains that he faced retaliation.
Support for Mr. Murray comes from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Securities and Exchange Commission ⁢(SEC),​ and the U.S. solicitor ​general, who have filed amici briefs.​ In July, two SEC commissioners dissented‌ from the agency’s​ decision to join the‍ solicitor general’s brief,⁢ criticizing the lack of “full and careful consideration.”

Insurance ‍Question

The second case on the docket for October 10th is Great‌ Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co. LLC, which centers around an insurance company’s refusal to cover a claim for ​a ‌yacht that⁢ ran‌ aground near ⁢Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Great Lakes Insurance ⁢(GLI) argues that the policy with Raiders Realty was void because ⁤the latter⁢ failed to recertify or inspect⁣ the yacht’s fire ⁢equipment in a timely manner.
In maritime law, ‍companies often use a choice-of-law clause to determine which state’s‌ law applies in a‍ contract. According to‍ SCOTUSBlog,‌ this particular contract selected federal⁣ admiralty law⁤ and New⁣ York state law. Raiders filed ‍the suit​ in Pennsylvania, arguing that the state’s rules on insurance denial would​ protect them more than New York law. They also seek to render the choice-of-law clause unenforceable, citing Pennsylvania’s “strong public policy.”

In the case of ‍Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., the Supreme Court ruled ⁤that a forum-selection⁣ provision is ‌unenforceable “if enforcement would contravene ​a strong ⁢public policy ‍of​ the ⁤forum in‍ which suit is brought.” This ruling led the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court’s decision in favor of GLI.

The Supreme Court⁤ will grapple with the ⁤standard for judging the enforcement ​of such clauses and whether⁤ a “strong public policy” can​ render ‍them unenforceable.

How do whistleblower advocacy groups argue that the⁢ burden​ of proof⁣ for ⁣retaliation should be on the company ‍rather ​than the whistleblower?

Ommission ‍(SEC), and numerous whistleblower advocacy groups. They argue that the burden of ‍proof for retaliation should be on the company, not the whistleblower.⁣ They claim ⁣that requiring whistleblowers to prove retaliatory intent⁤ would undermine ⁢the ​purpose⁣ of‍ the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and discourage individuals‌ from⁤ reporting ⁢fraud and misconduct.

Senator Chuck Grassley‍ (R-Iowa)​ speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington,‍ on Sept. 21, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)

On the other side‍ of the argument, UBS and other business groups contend that requiring whistleblowers to prove retaliatory ​intent ‌is necessary to prevent false‍ claims and protect ⁣companies from baseless accusations. They argue that proving ⁢retaliatory intent is crucial to distinguishing legitimate whistleblower cases from disgruntled‌ employee claims.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have significant ⁣implications for whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley ⁤Act. If the Court rules in⁣ favor of UBS, it may establish‌ a higher burden of proof⁢ for whistleblowers‌ and make ⁤it more difficult for them ​to prove retaliation.‍ This could discourage individuals from coming ⁤forward ‌and reporting corporate wrongdoing.

The second case ​to be heard by the Supreme Court is United States v. Carrier Corporation,‍ which involves a dispute over maritime law. The case centers⁢ around ⁣a retired worker suffering ‍from asbestos-related injuries, who alleges that ‌Carrier Corporation, a manufacturer of air conditioning ⁣units, failed to warn him about the ⁤dangers of asbestos in their products.

The worker filed a lawsuit⁣ against Carrier, claiming that the company’s failure ‌to provide adequate ‍warnings violated maritime law. However, the lower courts dismissed the ⁢case, ruling that maritime law‌ should ⁣not apply because the product was installed ‌on land, not a vessel.

The Supreme Court ‍will now decide whether maritime law should cover products that are predominantly used‍ on land but‌ have some connection to maritime activities. This case has ⁢implications not only for individuals seeking compensation for asbestos-related injuries but also for the ​interpretation of maritime law in general.
A Carrier air-conditioning unit‍ is​ seen



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Available for Amazon Prime
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker