Running head: WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS LAWSON V.

FMR LLC 1





Whistle Blower Protections Lawson v. FMR LLC
Frank Antonetti, Shane Fuller, Mbeta King, Levi Kirkland, Stephanie Sherant, David Tellechea
Law 531
August 4, 2014
Jay Hinkel

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS LAWSON V FMR LLC 2

Whistleblower Protections Lawson v. FMR LLC
Issue:
The issue for this case is that FMR, LLC interprets Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 only applies to publicly traded companies. The case began with employees from a
privately owned company filing a suit under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 against FMR, LLC
for retaliation for whistleblower activities. The Plaintiffs argue that FMR, LLC violated the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Rule:
Whistleblowing is the lawful act of an individual that publicly disclosing wrongdoing in a
company. Whistleblowers offer data that leads to an investigation that is relevant to fraudulent
activities that violates rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or Federal Law among
shareholders. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 806, states that employees of publicly
traded companies, or private companies employed by publicly traded companies receive
whistleblower protection and cannot terminate, suspend, demote, harass, threaten, of
discriminate against an employee that engages in whistleblowing activities (Laramore & Pope,
2014).
Analysis:
The plaintiffs of this suit work for FMR, LLC. FMR, LLC is a private firm contracted to
work for a publicly held company, a mutual fund. The plaintiffs allege retaliation by FMR, LLC
and other companies, and seek remedy under Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 protections against
whistleblower activities. At issue is the employment of the plaintiffs. According to Laramore and
Pope (2014), the judges ruled in favor of the plaintiffs writing that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 extended protections to private companies working on behalf of publicly traded companies.
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS LAWSON V FMR LLC 3

The plaintiffs in this case received protection against retaliation from his or her employers;
therefore, the defendants acted unlawfully when retaliating against the plaintiffs.
Conclusion:
Whistleblowing works in favor of both the employee and the agency. The employee has
the right to report any kind of work performance done improperly and unsafe. Whistleblowing is
very important for any information that will be needed when an investigation is pursued due to
the report of the improper work ethics. In this Case the argue was that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
did not extend to the privately owned company retaliated against its employees for
whistleblowing. The Case won in favor of the employees as it was ruled that the Sarbanes Oxley
Act benefits not only public owned organization, as the benefits also extend to the companys that
are privately owned as well.

Business Analysis:
In this case, the First United States Circuit court ruled the whistleblower protections of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) do not extend to employees who work for a publicly owned
company's contractors or subcontractors (Deschenaux, 2014). This decision by the courts will
impact the business and human resources of contractors and subcontractors of publicly traded
companies. For the contractors and subcontractors to be able to perform business ethically with
publicly traded companies, their employees would need whistleblower protection. A solution
would include contract stipulations stating that whistleblowers would receive protection similar
to Sarbanes-Oxley Act protections. This would allow contractors and subcontractors to identify
and express concern about improper business practices.

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS LAWSON V FMR LLC 4



WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS LAWSON V FMR LLC 5

References
Deschenaux, J. (2013). SHRM Files Brief in Supreme Court SOX Case . Retrieved from
http://www.shrm.org/legalissues/federalresources/pages/shrm-files-brief-sox-case.aspx
Laramore, J., Pope, L. (2014). Supreme Court Decides Lawson v. FMR LLC. Retrieved from
http://www.faegrebd.com/21269