Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
We Read The Supreme Court's own Syllabus or Per Curium word for word, then maybe say hin then shut the microphone back off.
We are the Antidote to Mainstream News and Entertainment-Hype Style coverage of the Supreme Court...What they do in the words of the RJD (Recorder of Judicial Decisions) Read by RJ Dieken and friends
Visit Montana's famous Loki Esq Law @ LokiEsq.Law (website) A Criminal Defense and Mediation Lawfirm Operating Statewide.
Be Kind to one another, say hi someday.
RoadsScholar80@gmai
*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC (Whistleblower / Retaliatory Discharge)
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
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.
