Question Presented
Does Leahy’s firing constitute retaliation for purposes of the Dodd-Frank act.?
Short Answer
Yes, given of the leniency of the common law test and the lack of escalating warnings from her employer, Leahy is likely to sustain a claim of retaliation against Monster Crush under the Dodd-Frank act.
Discussion
The relevant part of the Dodd-Frank Act reads: “No employer may discharge… a whistleblower in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act by the whistleblower… in providing information to the [SEC] in accordance with the section.” Most elements of the acts are satisfied in this situation. Leahy was an employee, and a whistleblower, who was discharged after she provided the SEC with information about an alleged misconduct. Only two elements remain unanswered: one, whether her act was lawful, and two, whether she was fired in retaliation for whistleblowing. The lawfulness of her act is assumed. The rest of this analysis focuses on the second element.
To establish a …show more content…
Leahy missed the deadline on April 29 and her employer added to “heightened review” on May 10. These two events were well before Leahy’s report to the SEC. This is significant because a court might view this as a “legitimate intervening basis for the adverse action” which is sufficient to defeat her claim. See Sharkey (citing Fraser). This is important because if a court is convinced, like in the Sharkey case, that this intervening event is what led to her termination, she might have failed to make her claim. But Leahy’s case can be easily distinguished on the facts from Sharkey. In Sharkey, Sharkey’s employee took the disciplinary steps three days before Sharkey raised her initial complaint of possible misconduct. In this case, Leahy raised her complaint a full month before Monster Crush initiated any disciplinary
Does Leahy’s firing constitute retaliation for purposes of the Dodd-Frank act.?
Short Answer
Yes, given of the leniency of the common law test and the lack of escalating warnings from her employer, Leahy is likely to sustain a claim of retaliation against Monster Crush under the Dodd-Frank act.
Discussion
The relevant part of the Dodd-Frank Act reads: “No employer may discharge… a whistleblower in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act by the whistleblower… in providing information to the [SEC] in accordance with the section.” Most elements of the acts are satisfied in this situation. Leahy was an employee, and a whistleblower, who was discharged after she provided the SEC with information about an alleged misconduct. Only two elements remain unanswered: one, whether her act was lawful, and two, whether she was fired in retaliation for whistleblowing. The lawfulness of her act is assumed. The rest of this analysis focuses on the second element.
To establish a …show more content…
Leahy missed the deadline on April 29 and her employer added to “heightened review” on May 10. These two events were well before Leahy’s report to the SEC. This is significant because a court might view this as a “legitimate intervening basis for the adverse action” which is sufficient to defeat her claim. See Sharkey (citing Fraser). This is important because if a court is convinced, like in the Sharkey case, that this intervening event is what led to her termination, she might have failed to make her claim. But Leahy’s case can be easily distinguished on the facts from Sharkey. In Sharkey, Sharkey’s employee took the disciplinary steps three days before Sharkey raised her initial complaint of possible misconduct. In this case, Leahy raised her complaint a full month before Monster Crush initiated any disciplinary