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!


SCOTUS sides with whistleblower in retaliation case

Says that lower court applied precedent too broadly


Sometimes standing up for the right thing can be hard, and when it involves calling out peers or superiors, the odds of swift retribution can seem too high for the risk. However, multiple government regulators have made it clear that retaliation against whistleblowers will not go unpunished, and that point was further solidified by the Supreme Court in a decision on June 19th.

The case in question relates to the lay-off of community college employee Edward Lane in Alabama.  Following his testimony in 2006 that a high ranking state official was on the books as an employee for the school but did not actually work there, Lane was fired.


New report examines whistleblower protection laws in place among G20 nations

SEC brings whistleblower retaliation charges

Signs of success of Dodd-Frank law in eastern Congo mines

Lane charged that his lay-off was retaliation for his testimony, but lower courts dismissed the suit. According to the Wall Street Journal, the lower court used a Supreme Court precedent from 2006 that held a deputy district attorney could be disciplined for testifying on police misconduct associated with cases being brought by his office.

The SCOTUS unanimously reversed a lower court decision, saying it had applied the 2006 precedent too broadly. It was also pointed out that Lane had been subpoenaed in the corruption trial, and therefore did not have a choice to testify or not.

In the opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the court said, “speech by citizens on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the First Amendment, which “was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about political and social changers desired by the people…This remains true when speech concerns information related to or learned through public employment.”

The case has now been sent back to lower court.



Executive Editor

author image

Chris DiMarco

Chris DiMarco, Executive Editor of InsideCounsel magazine, has a background in multimedia production with previous involvement in projects in which he developed and created content...

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.