Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC

Background

Trevor Murray, a research strategist at UBS’s commercial mortgage-backed securities desk, reported that two trading-desk leaders pressured him to skew his independent research and to clear his reports with the desk. Murray told his supervisor, Michael Schumacher, who later recommended removing Murray from the firm’s head count, and UBS fired Murray in February 2012. Murray filed a Sarbanes-Oxley claim under 18 U.S.C. §1514A, which protects employees who report suspected securities fraud. At trial, the jury was instructed that Murray needed to show his reporting was a contributing factor in his firing, and then UBS had the chance to prove by clear and convincing evidence it would have fired him anyway.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the statute also requires proof that an employer acted with retaliatory intent or animus. The unanimous opinion explained that the text of §1514A does not add a separate retaliatory-intent element and that the contributing-factor burden-shifting framework Congress adopted is the proper way to resolve questions about intent. The Court said the word “discriminate” in the statute means differential treatment and does not demand proof of hostility, and it emphasized that Congress chose a plaintiff-friendly standard while giving employers the opportunity to rebut the claim.

Real world impact

The decision makes it easier for employees who report suspected fraud to prevail in Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claims because they need not prove employer hostility, only that their reporting contributed to the adverse action. Employers remain able to avoid liability if they show by clear and convincing evidence they would have taken the same action for nonretaliatory reasons. The Court reversed the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Barrett, concurred to stress that removing an animus requirement does not eliminate the need to prove intentional discrimination under the statute.