Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC

The case arose after Trevor Murray, a research strategist at UBS Securities, reported that senior colleagues pressured him to publish biased research on commercial mortgage-backed securities. He was later terminated and sued under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's whistleblower protection provision, 18 U.S.C. §1514A. A federal jury initially awarded him damages, but the Second Circuit vacated the verdict, holding that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that Murray must prove UBS acted with retaliatory intent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and unanimously affirmed the Second Circuit on February 8, 2024. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the statute's "because of" language requires a showing of discriminatory or retaliatory motive, not merely that protected activity was a contributing factor in an adverse action.

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Second Circuit's decision, holding that a plaintiff must prove the employer acted with retaliatory intent to prevail on a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation claim. The original jury verdict for Murray was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this standard.

Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's whistleblower protection provision requires a plaintiff to prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent, or whether it is sufficient to show that protected whistleblowing activity was merely a contributing factor in the adverse employment action.

The ruling raises the evidentiary burden for whistleblowers bringing retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, requiring proof of employer motive rather than mere causal connection. This may weaken federal whistleblower protections and influence how employers manage internal complaints and compliance programs.