The Court held that a whistleblower who brings a claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's anti-retaliation provision must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer's unfavorable personnel action, but does not need to prove that the employer acted with "retaliatory intent" or animus.
More at <a href="https://9robes.ai/2024/08/murray-v-ubs-securities-llc-et-al-docket-no-22-660" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">9robes.ai</a>

The Court held that a whistleblower who brings a claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's anti-retaliation provision must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer's unfavorable personnel action, but does not need to prove that the employer acted with "retaliatory intent" or animus. More at 9robes.ai

The Court held that a whistleblower who brings a claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's anti-retaliation provision must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer's unfavorable personnel action, but does not need to prove that the employer acted with "retaliatory intent" or animus.
More at <a href="https://9robes.ai/2024/08/murray-v-ubs-securities-llc-et-al-docket-no-22-660" rel="noopener noreferrer">9robes.ai</a>

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al. - Docket No. 22–660

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions shape the laws and lives of every American. Yet, understanding these rulings can be a challenge, often clouded by complex legal jargon and lengthy opinions. 9robes creates AI summaries of Supreme Court opinions using plain language and focuses on the facts.

Share Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al. - Docket No. 22–660

Sign up to save your podcasts

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al. - Docket No. 22–660

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al. - Docket No. 22–660