Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: October 10, 2023
Decided: February 8, 2024
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Samuel Alito • Amy Coney Barrett

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 8, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 10, 2023.

In a 9-0 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that to use the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, whistleblowers have to prove that their protected activity was a factor that contributed to their employer’s unfavorable personnel action. However, they do not need to prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "[M]ust a whistleblower prove his employer acted with a "retaliatory intent" as part of his case in chief, or is the lack of "retaliatory intent" part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof?"[2]
  • The outcome: The court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that to use the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, whistleblowers have to prove that their protected activity was a factor that contributed to their employer’s unfavorable personnel action. However, they do not need to prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC is a case involving the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), which protects whistleblowers who report publicly traded companies' misconduct from retaliation by their employers. The justices were asked to determine whether SOX places the burden of proof on the whistleblower to show that their employer acted with retaliatory intent or if it places the burden of proof on the employer to show a lack of retaliatory intent.[2]

    Trevor Murray, the petitioner in the case, began working as a strategist for UBS Securities, a commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) business, in 2011. Murray conducted research and produced reports which were distributed to potential UBS clients.[3]

    According to Murray, two leaders of UBS's trading desk, Ken Cohen and Dave McNamara, pressured him to misrepresent his findings and to publish favorable reports. In December 2011 and January 2012, Murray informed his supervisor, Michael Schumacher, of the pressure to skew his findings. According to Murray, Schumacher sympathized with his situation but reminded him that it was "important that you do not alienate your internal client."[3] Later, Schumacher emailed his supervisor, suggesting that UBS should "remove [Murray] from our head count" by moving him to another position, "[o]therwise, we will make the tough call."[3] Murray was terminated from UBS in February 2012.[3][4][5]

    According to UBS, the respondent in the case, Murray's termination resulted from staff reductions caused by financial difficulties. UBS eliminated several positions during this time, including Murray's. UBS says that strategists are not essential to CMBS businesses, and many run successfully without them. Further, strategists do not sell or trade securities, so they do not generate revenue for the business.[3] UBS argues that these reasons show that the decision to terminate Murray was financial, not retaliatory.[5][6]

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit vacated and remanded the Southern District of New York's opinion. The appellate court determined that the burden of proof was on the whistleblower to show that their employer responded with retaliatory intent. Murray has asked the Court to review the lower court's decision, arguing that the burden of proof lies with the employer.[3][5][6]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Under the burden-shifting framework that governs Sarbanes-Oxley cases, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with a "retaliatory intent" as part of his case in chief, or is the lack of "retaliatory intent" part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof?

    [7]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that to use the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, whistleblowers have to prove that their protected activity was a factor that contributed to their employer’s unfavorable personnel action. However, they do not need to prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    Section 1514A’s text does not reference or include a 'retaliatory intent' requirement, and the provision’s mandatory burden-shifting framework cannot be squared with such a requirement. While a whistleblower bringing a §1514A claim must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action, he need not also prove that his employer acted with 'retaliatory intent.'[7]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]

    “

    I agree with the Court that a plaintiff suing under the whistleblower-protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act need not prove that his or her employer acted with 'animus,' a term that denotes 'prejudic[e]' or 'ill will.'* Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 46 (10th ed. 1996); American Heritage Dictionary 73 (3d ed. 1992). The statute makes no mention of 'animus' or any of its synonyms, and we have no ground for adding it in as an additional, nonstatutory requirement. I write separately to explain in simple terms how the statute works and to reiterate that our rejection of an 'animus' requirement does not read intent out of the statute. Rather, as the Court confirms, a plaintiff must still show intent to discriminate.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[10]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "MURRAY v. UBS SECURITIES, LLC, ET AL. ," accessed February 9, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "22-660 MURRAY V. UBS SECURITIES, LLC," accessed May 1, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, "Murray v. UBS Sec.," August 5, 2022
    4. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "TREVOR MURRAY, v.UBS SECURITIES, LLC AND UBS AG," April 5, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 SCOTUSblog, "The standard for bringing a “whistleblower” retaliation claim under Sarbanes-Oxley," April 26, 2023
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 SupremeCourt.gov, "TREVOR MURRAY, v.UBS SECURITIES, LLC AND UBS AG," March 20, 2023
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 10, 2023
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 10, 2023
    10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Murray_v._UBS_Securities,_LLC&oldid=9408881"