Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.
*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC (Whistleblower / Retaliatory Discharge)
TREVOR MURRAY, PETITIONER v. UBS SECURITIES, LLC, ET AL.
As part of Trevor Murray's job at UBS, he had to file reports to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). In these reports, he had to certify that the reports reflected his personal and independent views. Despite physical separation from the rest of the unit, Murray claimed that he was receiving pressure from higher ups to skew his reports. He reported these conversations and stated that he thought the pressure was illegal. Evidently during internal discussions, UBS supervisors stated that Murray needed to be either fired or taken off the trading desk.
About six weeks after first reporting these concerns, Murray was fired. He sued UBS for retaliatory discharge under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A federal jury ruled for Murray. The jury was not instructed that UBS must have some sort of retaliatory intent. UBS appealed. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded, instructing for a new trial with a jury instruction requiring a finding of "retaliatory intent." The issue in front of the Supreme Court was whether the statutory language "discriminate against an employee . . . because of ” places the burden on the whistleblower to prove that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent" -- as the Second Circuit held. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the plain language of the not require a proving of this intent. Affirmed. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous court.
