Supreme Court limits Dodd-Frank protections for whistleblowers

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY LYDIA WHEELER - 02/21/18 10:40 AM EST

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that anti-retaliations protections under the Dodd-Frank Act only kick in when a whistleblower has reported the stock and investment fraud to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

In a unanimous decision, the court said the core of Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower program is to aid the SEC's enforcement work by “motivating people who know of securities law violations to tell the SEC.”

The case centered on Paul Somers, a former employee for Digital Realty Trust Inc. who was fired after he reported alleged securities violations to his senior management, but not the SEC. Somers and his attorney argue his employment should have been protected under the Dodd-Frank rule.

In delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the statute says otherwise. “The definition section of the statute supplies an unequivocal answer: A “whistleblower” is “any individual who provides … information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission,’” she wrote.

###

Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/374834-supreme-court-limits-dodd-frank-protections-for-whistleblowers

[hueymahl]

1. Too Bad

But if Ginsburg is making that ruling, then there must be no way around the statute to provide employment protection.

[ToxMarz]

2. It doesn't sound like the Supreme Court is limiting protections

More like the limitations are written into the statute.

[procon]

3. Was the law written that way as a flaw, or was it a benefit? nt

[KWR65]

4. I Snitched on my employer 25 years ago.

It ended up with me being fired because an state employee that worked at OSHA knew my boss so she told him it was me. I was fired. I went to three different lawyers and they all said the case wasn't worth their time. That was the last time I opened my big mouth to any government agency or employee.