The question
Whether a whistleblower who invokes Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act must prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent, or need only prove that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action.
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed for Murray. A whistleblower suing under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act must show that protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer's unfavorable personnel action, and does not need to prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. The statute's text does not include a retaliatory-intent requirement, and its mandatory burden-shifting framework cannot be reconciled with one.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
Section 1514A(a) does not reference or include a retaliatory-intent requirement, and the provision's mandatory burden-shifting framework cannot be squared with one. The word discriminate in the catchall provision means differential treatment and does not require animus, so when an employer treats a whistleblower worse because of protected activity that is actionable discrimination regardless of animosity. Under Sarbanes-Oxley the plaintiff's burden on intent is only to show that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action.
Concurring
Alito, joined by Barrett
Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Barrett, agreeing with the Court's judgment and reasoning that Section 1514A does not require a whistleblower to prove retaliatory intent.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
A whistleblower under Section 1514A must prove that protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer's unfavorable personnel action.
Source: syllabus, Held
A whistleblower under Section 1514A need not prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent.
Source: syllabus, Held
Section 1514A(a)'s text does not reference or include a retaliatory-intent requirement, and its mandatory burden-shifting framework cannot be squared with one.
Source: syllabus, Held
Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Barrett joined.
Source: syllabus, lineup