man-user-icon Client Login Portal
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    Labaton Sucharow
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Contact Us
    • Knowledge Network
    • Client Login
    • Search
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    Labaton Sucharow
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
      • The Liaison
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars

    Companies Made Deals That Could Run Afoul of U.S. Whistleblower Rules

    The New York Times, Reuters
    August 25, 2016

    Jordan A. Thomas comments on employment language that seeks to muzzle whistleblowers

    Wells Fargo, Advanced Micro Devices, and Fifth Third Bank have in recent years agreed to settlement deals that seek to muzzle former employees in ways that some lawyers said could violate U.S. whistleblower protection laws. Five lawyers, including three who represent whistleblowers, said that the settlements appear aimed at blocking workers from airing their concerns and contain similarities to those used by other companies that ran afoul of government rules. The deals by Wells Fargo, AMD, and Fifth Third Bank were among a dozen such corporate settlements reached between 2012 and 2015.

    The companies each struck deals with departing workers that limit the employees' ability to receive money arising from any government investigations into their former employers. Some language in the settlements could run afoul of rules adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2011 that generally bar corporate attempts to muzzle whistleblowers, said the lawyers. Since 2015, the SEC has brought four cases targeting specific types of so-called whistleblower gag orders, such as confidentiality agreements that bar employees from discussing internal wrongdoing.

    This month, the agency announced civil charges against two companies that required outgoing employees to waive their rights to recover government whistleblower awards in severance agreements. Those companies, Health Net, now part of Centene Corporation, and BlueLinx Holdings settled without admitting or denying liability and each paid six-figure fines.

    Jordan A. Thomas, Chair of Labaton Sucharow’s Whistleblower Practice said that the language used in the Fifth Third, Wells Fargo, and Advanced Micro Devices settlements is designed to discourage whistleblowers from reporting corporate misbehavior.

    As in the Health Net and BlueLinx cases, all three settlements contain language restricting the employees from collecting any money resulting from a government investigation or legal proceeding.

    "I believe the SEC would be troubled by this," Thomas added.

    Useful Links

    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Center

    Our Locations

    footer-list-map_icon New York
    140 Broadway
    New York, NY 10005
    212-907-0700

    footer-list-map_icon Delaware
    300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    302-573-2540

    Useful Links

    footer-list-map_icon Washington, D.C.
    1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
    Washington, D.C. 20036
    202-772-1880

    Stay Connected

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    Labaton Sucharow
    • Attorney Advertising Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • labaton.com
    • Labaton Sucharow All Rights Reserved 2019

    Attorney Advertising Disclaimer

    The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. You should not take action based upon this information without consulting legal counsel. This site is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon any single source of information, including advertising on this website. You may ask us to send you further information about us, and we urge you to review other sources of information about us.