In Bloomberg Law, Employment and Litigation Teams Examine Implications of Supreme Court Ruling of Murray v. UBS Securities for Employers

In an article for Bloomberg Law, employment, executive compensation, and employee benefits partner Greg Demers, and litigation associate Brendan Kearney discuss what the ruling in the Court’s whistleblower case means for employers and how businesses can protect themselves.

“In practice, Murray may deter an employer from taking an otherwise legitimate adverse employment action for fear that such a decision could trigger a claim of retaliation,” said Greg.

However, and notably, “the court's ruling in Murray extends to any adverse employment action, not just discharge,” said Greg.  “Shifting the job responsibilities of an employee, taking them off a large project or client matter, or even adjusting their reporting chain or schedule can potentially expose an employer to a retaliation claim if it takes place after the employee makes a report.”

“There are several proactive measures that employers can take to put themselves in a stronger position to mitigate whistleblower risk in Murray’s wake,” said Greg. “Murray serves as a reminder to all employers to periodically reassess whistleblower policies and procedures, train managers on the importance of anti-retaliation, and carefully document performance deficiencies and other legitimate bases for adverse employment actions.”