Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


Are whistleblowers protected from retaliation?

Conflicting rulings from circuit, district courts muddy the waters

An essential aspect of the Dodd-Frank Act is the whistleblower provision, which encourages employees to report potential fraud or wrongdoing in their companies internally or to the Securities and Exchange Commission. But in order to go out on a limb and report suspicious activities, employees would want to ensure that they are protected from retaliation.

Whether they are, though, appears to be a sticky matter. There have been conflicting rulings coming from circuit and district courts that are in direct opposition. For example, in one case involving a whistleblower from General Electric, the 5th Circuit Court ruled that employees had to report to the SEC directly in order to be protected from retaliation.

On the other hand, at least six U.S. district-court judges have ruled otherwise. Most recently, a U.S. district court judge in Massachusetts ruled on a case involving Richard Ellington, who reported suspected securities violations to the SEC after he was fired from New England Investment and Retirement Group. The judge rejected the argument that Ellington was ineligible because he reported the violations after he was fired.

The reason for the differing interpretations stems from some ambiguous wording in the act itself. In one place, a whistleblower is defined as someone who reports information to the SEC, but elsewhere, the document outlines a number of ways that employees can report suspected violations and earn protection.

This seems to create a bit of a conundrum for workers who witness suspicious activity in their companies. Many would likely wish to report such suspicions internally at first (and most companies would likely prefer this method as an initial step), but if they only receive protection if they go directly to the SEC, they might hesitate to take matters that far. Look for legislation to clear up this loophole, or perhaps a ruling from the Supreme Court to clarify matters once and for all.

Senior Editor and Community Manager

author image

Rich Steeves

Richard P. Steeves is Senior Editor and Community Manager of InsideCounsel magazine, where he covers the intellectual property and compliance beats. Rich earned a B.A....

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.