342:"wasn't just unethical, it was illegal" Schumacher relayed this to one of his supervisors, Larry Hatheway. Schumacher proposed to Hatheway that Murray should either be fired or moved to the trading desk. Two days later, Murray and Schumacher met again, and Schumacher gave Murray his performance review — Schumacher did not mention to Murray that his job was in jeopardy. Murray reiterated his perception of unlawful behavior on behalf of the trading desk, but Schumacher advised Murray to just print favorable findings. After another supervisor declined to move Murray to the trading desk, Schumacher and Hatheway agreed to fire Murray. On February 6, 2012, Schumacher fired Murray.
388:, UBS made two arguments. First, it argued that Murray had failed to prove that UBS had acted with "retaliatory intent" when it terminated Murray's employment. Second, it argued that the burden of proving retaliatory intent should fall on Murray, rather than requiring UBS to show a lack of such retaliatory intent. The Court disagreed with UBS on its first argument, finding that sufficient evidence had been presented at trial to prove that UBS had acted with retaliatory intent. However, it agreed with UBS on its second argument, that the jury should have been instructed that it was Murray's burden to prove retaliatory intent. Murray unsuccessfully petitioned for an
29:
372:
that he was fired for his unfavorable reporting. On the other hand, UBS contended that Murray's entire claim was fabricated — that there was no pressure directed at Murray, and thus none of his behavior could have been protected by SOX. Jurors were instructed that, for Murray to prevail on his retaliation claim, he must prove four factors: (1) that he engaged in protected conduct, (2) that his employer was aware of this conduct, (3) that he was fired, and (4) that his conduct was a contributing factor in his termination.
314:
reporting "was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint." If the employee meets this burden, then the employer can only prevail if it "demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that behavior."
411:
delivered a unanimous opinion, siding with Murray. The justices held that with the protections of SOX, a whistleblower does not have to prove that their employer acted with "retaliatory intent", but that they do need to prove that their activity, protected by SOX, contributed to what the employer did
337:
Despite this, Murray's supervisors pressured him into skewing his findings in favor of UBS business strategies. Although UBS's compliance department had physically separated Murray's workspace from the trading floor (which actively sold CMBS) to ensure compliance, his supervisors continued to attempt
375:
The jury was instructed that, if it found the existence of these four factors, it should shift to the second step of SOX's burden shifting framework. Namely, in order to prevail, UBS would need to demonstrate that it would have terminated Murray's employment regardless of his engagement in protected
341:
In early
December 2011, Murray's supervisor, Michael Schumacher, prepared a glowing review of Murray's performance. He had not yet been made aware of the pressure Murray was receiving from the trading desk. Later that month, the two met and Murray revealed the situation to Schumacher, saying that it
313:
states that when a whistleblower invokes the Act, claiming that he was fired for his reporting, his claim is "governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code." Under that framework, the employee meets his burden of proof by demonstrating that his
371:
Murray's case went to trial in 2017. At trial, Murray contested that: he was unlawfully pressured by the UBS trading desk to skew his work product in favor of UBS's CMBS business, in violation of SEC regulations; he reported this behavior to his supervisor, who then advised him to capitulate, and;
147:
Under the burden-shifting framework that governs
Sarbanes-Oxley cases, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with a "retaliatory intent" as part of his case in chief, or is the lack of "retaliatory intent" part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of
376:
activity. If they found that UBS had improperly retaliated against Murray, then he would be entitled to compensation. The jury found that Murray had proven all four elements of his claim, but that UBS had not met its burden of proof. Murray was awarded nearly $ 1 million in damages.
305:) SOX mandated certain financial record keeping and reporting practices for corporations. The Act imposes responsibilities upon a public corporation's board of directors, and adds criminal penalties for misconduct.
360:
354:
alleging that his employment was terminated in retaliation because of his whistleblowing, in violation of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act. After 180 days, his complaint lapsed, and Murray exercised his right to file a
308:
In order to encourage disclosure, SOX protects whistleblowers who report financial wrongdoing by providing a civil cause of action to protect against retaliation by employers. The portion of SOX that amended
583:
338:
to influence Murray's work. Notwithstanding Murray's internal memoranda describing the firm's CMBS trading as "risky", his supervisors continued to describe it as profitable and successful.
162:
must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”
326:, a multinational investment bank and financial services company. In 2011, he was recruited back to UBS. When he returned, Murray was responsible for researching UBS's commercial
385:
266:
77:
573:
578:
430:
334:(SEC) regulations required Murray to certify, under penalty of law, that his findings accurately reflected his personal and independent views.
538:
509:
494:
479:
331:
33:
351:
588:
274:
327:
400:
On
January 13, 2023, Murray petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case. On May 1, 2023, the Court granted
159:
290:
61:
270:
229:
72:
498:
294:
278:
99:
513:
221:
483:
302:
455:
408:
217:
197:
185:
297:(SOX). Passed in the aftermath of various major corporate accounting scandals (including
567:
298:
277:
case regarding the standard for bringing a whistleblower retaliation claim under the
330:(CMBS), and reporting his findings to the firm's current and prospective customers.
209:
193:
177:
130:
205:
118:
310:
134:
89:
122:
361:
United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York
431:"UBS Whistleblower's Retaliation Case Taken Up by Supreme Court"
28:
323:
456:"SEC.gov | The Laws That Govern the Securities Industry"
584:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
386:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit
158:
A whistleblower seeking to invoke the protections of
250:
242:
237:
166:
152:
141:
110:
105:
95:
85:
67:
57:
47:
40:
21:
52:Trevor Murray v. UBS Securities LLC, and UBS AG
404:. Oral argument was held on October 10, 2023.
350:In August 2012, Murray filed a claim with the
8:
322:From 2007 to 2008, Trevor Murray worked for
533:
531:
529:
527:
525:
523:
521:
18:
421:
16:2024 United States Supreme Court case
7:
546:Supreme Court of the United States
332:Securities and Exchange Commission
34:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
574:United States Supreme Court cases
429:Atkinson, Khorri (May 1, 2023).
27:
579:2024 in United States case law
246:Sotomayor, joined by unanimous
1:
262:Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
22:Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
275:United States Supreme Court
605:
499:§ 42121(b)(2)(B)(iii)
328:mortgage-backed securities
160:section 806 of the SOX Act
514:§ 42121(b)(2)(B)(iv)
171:
157:
146:
26:
254:Alito, joined by Barrett
43:Decided February 8, 2024
392:rehearing of his case.
127:Murray v. UBS Sec., LLC
41:Argued October 10, 2023
291:United States Congress
539:"Brief for Petitoner"
484:§ 1514A(b)(2)(C)
407:On February 8, 2024,
230:Ketanji Brown Jackson
273:23 (2024), is a
352:Department of Labor
346:Lower court history
142:Questions presented
117:, 43 F.4th
589:Sarbanes–Oxley Act
295:Sarbanes–Oxley Act
279:Sarbanes-Oxley Act
182:Associate Justices
115:Murray v. UBS Sec.
409:Justice Sotomayor
384:On appeal to the
258:
257:
222:Amy Coney Barrett
596:
558:
557:
555:
553:
543:
535:
516:
507:
501:
492:
486:
477:
471:
470:
468:
466:
452:
446:
445:
443:
441:
426:
380:Court of Appeals
167:Court membership
31:
30:
19:
604:
603:
599:
598:
597:
595:
594:
593:
564:
563:
562:
561:
551:
549:
548:. June 27, 2023
541:
537:
536:
519:
508:
504:
493:
489:
478:
474:
464:
462:
454:
453:
449:
439:
437:
428:
427:
423:
418:
398:
382:
369:
348:
320:
287:
220:
218:Brett Kavanaugh
208:
198:Sonia Sotomayor
196:
186:Clarence Thomas
42:
36:
17:
12:
11:
5:
602:
600:
592:
591:
586:
581:
576:
566:
565:
560:
559:
517:
510:49 U.S.C.
502:
495:49 U.S.C.
487:
480:18 U.S.C.
472:
447:
420:
419:
417:
414:
397:
394:
381:
378:
368:
367:District Court
365:
359:action in the
347:
344:
319:
316:
286:
283:
256:
255:
252:
248:
247:
244:
240:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
183:
180:
175:
169:
168:
164:
163:
155:
154:
150:
149:
144:
143:
139:
138:
112:
108:
107:
103:
102:
97:
93:
92:
87:
83:
82:
69:
65:
64:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
38:
37:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
601:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
571:
569:
547:
540:
534:
532:
530:
528:
526:
524:
522:
518:
515:
511:
506:
503:
500:
496:
491:
488:
485:
481:
476:
473:
461:
457:
451:
448:
436:
435:Bloomberg Law
432:
425:
422:
415:
413:
412:in response.
410:
405:
403:
396:Supreme Court
395:
393:
391:
387:
379:
377:
373:
366:
364:
362:
358:
353:
345:
343:
339:
335:
333:
329:
325:
317:
315:
312:
306:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:In 2002, the
285:Prior history
284:
282:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
263:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:Case opinions
236:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
181:
179:
176:
174:Chief Justice
173:
172:
170:
165:
161:
156:
151:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:
109:
104:
101:
98:
94:
91:
90:Oral argument
88:
84:
80:
79:
74:
70:
66:
63:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
39:
35:
25:
20:
550:. Retrieved
545:
505:
490:
475:
463:. Retrieved
459:
450:
438:. Retrieved
434:
424:
406:
401:
399:
389:
383:
374:
370:
356:
349:
340:
336:
321:
307:
293:enacted the
288:
261:
260:
259:
225:
213:
210:Neil Gorsuch
201:
194:Samuel Alito
189:
178:John Roberts
126:
114:
106:Case history
76:
51:
460:www.sec.gov
251:Concurrence
206:Elena Kagan
568:Categories
416:References
402:certiorari
318:Background
129:, 14 Civ.
58:Docket no.
552:August 3,
465:August 3,
440:August 3,
131:927 (KPF)
68:Citations
311:Title 18
303:WorldCom
243:Majority
135:S.D.N.Y.
96:Decision
86:Argument
390:en banc
357:de novo
153:Holding
125:2022).
123:2d Cir.
100:Opinion
512:
497:
482:
228:
226:·
224:
216:
214:·
212:
204:
202:·
200:
192:
190:·
188:
148:proof?
62:22-660
542:(PDF)
299:Enron
269:
137:2020)
111:Prior
554:2023
467:2023
442:2023
301:and
271:U.S.
78:more
75:23 (
73:U.S.
71:601
324:UBS
267:601
119:254
570::
544:.
520:^
458:.
433:.
363:.
281:.
265:,
556:.
469:.
444:.
133:(
121:(
81:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.