Workforce Bulletin

Recently, a Georgia federal district court permitted an employer’s counterclaims against its former employee-whistleblower to proceed in a False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit after determining that the employer’s amended counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract were sufficiently independent from the underlying FCA claims to survive a motion to dismiss, despite significant factual overlap. The decision in U.S. ex rel. Cooley v. ERMI, LLC, et al.., a qui tam FCA action where the plaintiff, known as a “Relator,” brings the claim on behalf of the ...

On November 13, 2023, in USA ex rel, Morgan-Lee, et al. v. The Whittier Health Network, LLC, et al., a Massachusetts federal district judge concluded that although the plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she raised suspicions about billing fraud under the False Claims Act, her termination was not retaliatory where she engaged in erratic, confrontational, and insubordinate communication exchanges with superiors and colleagues. Morgan-Lee is a positive development for employers because it reinforces that engaging in protected activity does not shield an employee ...

On November 14, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced its enforcement results for fiscal year 2023, boasting increases in enforcement and financial remedies across all of its programs. The SEC filed a staggering 784 enforcement actions, obtained orders for nearly $5 billion in financial remedies, and distributed nearly $1 billion to harmed investors.

The SEC’s most notable results, however, came from its Whistleblower Program: In fiscal year 2023, the SEC issued whistleblower awards totaling nearly $600 million, the most ever awarded in one ...

On September 25, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit clarified what a whistleblower plaintiff must allege to demonstrate they had a “reasonable belief” that their employer violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”). In Ronnie v. Office Depot, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit adopted an employer-friendly “totality of the circumstances” standard for evaluating whether a plaintiff’s belief was “reasonable.” Ronnie is a win for employers in the Eleventh Circuit because it makes clear that, to establish that they engaged in protected ...

Less than two weeks after it last penalized a private employer for alleged violations of whistleblower protection rules in its employee separation agreements, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) once again takes aim at the language of a separation agreement it alleges violates Rule 21F-17(a) of the Exchange Act (“Rule 21F”). Just yesterday, the SEC issued an Order settling charges with a commercial real estate services and investment firm for such violations through a fine of $375,000, among other terms. The SEC’s aggressive and continued ...

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) continues to aggressively enforce its whistleblower program under the Biden Administration. As we have reported (here and here), the SEC has cracked down on employers’ agreements and procedures that it contends interfere with employee access to the SEC. Most recently, on September 8, 2023, the SEC issued an Order imposing a $225,000 penalty to a private energy and technology company, Monolith Resources LLC (“Monolith”), for allegedly violating whistleblower protection rules in its employee separation ...

On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed the Anti-Money Laundering Whistleblower Improvement Act (“the Act”) into law, overhauling the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (“AMLA”).  When initially passed, the AMLA met with extensive criticism by plaintiff-side whistleblower attorneys for failing to set a defined guaranteed rate for whistleblower awards, with the potential awards ranging from zero percent to thirty percent for identifying wrongful conduct in the anti-money laundering area.  In response to this criticism and to correct other “shortcomings,” Congress amended the law in 2022 through its omnibus budget to expand enforcement measures within the United States and beyond its borders by clarifying who can be a whistleblower and the rewards for successfully raising compliance complaints.  Below, we delve into these changes and their significance for employers.  Essentially, these changes will increase employers’ potential liability for retaliation claims by emboldening newly eligible whistleblowers and their lawyers to raise non-compliance complaints.

On December 21, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“WPA”) protects employees who report that their employer has violated “suspected” laws in a case called Janetsky v. County of Saginaw.  In a first-of-its-kind ruling, the divided Court in Janetsky concluded that an assistant county prosecutor could bring WPA claims against her supervisor who she believed illegally offered a below-minimum plea deal.

Laws protecting whistleblowers generally afford anti-retaliation protections when employees “step out of their role” to report discrimination and dangerous or illegal activity, but not to employees when they are performing their issue spotting job duties.  Employers who understand this distinction are well positioned to manage underperforming employees in sensitive issue-spotting roles such as information technology, compliance, internal audit and even in-house counsel without running afoul of anti-retaliation laws.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s recent decision affirming the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of whistleblower retaliation claims in Johnson v. Board of Education Retirement System of City of New York illustrates this distinction.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state legislatures across the country have accelerated their discussion of new laws either restricting or further protecting access to abortions.  A state senate bill in South Carolina, S. 1373 currently pending in the Senate Committee on Medical Affairs, would not only ban almost all abortions in that state, but would also afford novel whistleblower protections. Specifically, S. 1373 imposes criminal penalties, punishable by imprisonment for ten years, for persons who “take any action to impede a whistleblower from communicating about a violation of this article with the Attorney General, a solicitor, or any other person authorized to bring an action in violation of this article.”

Exchange Act Rule 21F-17, adopted in 2011 under the auspices of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, prohibits any person from taking any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the SEC, including by “enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement . . . .”  The SEC has prioritized enforcing this rule expansively, by requiring employers to provide SEC-specific carveouts to policies and agreements governing confidentiality.  According to an Order issued last week against The Brink’s Company ( “Brink’s” or “Brinks”), the SEC seems to suggest that employers must provide a specific carveout in restrictive covenant agreements permitting employees and former employees to report information to the SEC in addition to the statutory disclosure provided for in the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).

Employees who resign from work, sue their employer, and assert “constructive discharge” shoulder a heavy burden to demonstrate that they had no choice but to resign. A recent decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, Armato v. Town of Stoneham, shows just how heavy that burden is.

On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court, in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (Cal., Jan. 27, 2022) __ P.3d __, 2022 WL 244731, clarified the evidentiary standard for presenting and evaluating retaliation claims under California Labor Code Section 1102.5 (“section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claim”).   Lawson involved a workplace retaliation claim brought by a sales representative selling paint products to home improvement stores in Southern California. The plaintiff claimed his employer terminated him because he complained about being instructed to alter the tint of certain paint colors to avoid having to repurchase less popular paints from the retailer later.

In 2003, California lawmakers enacted Labor Code Section 1102.6, setting forth a framework for whistleblower retaliation claims that varied from the burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 (“McDonnell Douglas”).  Despite section 1102.6’s enactment, some California courts continued to apply the McDonnell Douglas test to section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claims.

On January 26, 2022, legislation (“Amendments”) amending and significantly expanding the scope of New York’s whistleblower laws will take effect.

As our previous Insight explained in more detail, the Amendments make it much easier for individuals to bring a retaliation claim under New York Labor Law § 740 (“Section 740”) and increase coverage for workers who allege that they have been retaliated against for reporting suspected employer wrongdoing to include former employees and independent contractors.

November 17, 2021, the Department of Labor (“DOL”), National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) conducted a webinar on Ending Retaliation and Promoting Workers Rights.  The webinar is the first component of a “Joint Initiative” devoted to “vigorous enforcement” of laws against retaliation, through closer inter-agency cooperation.  The webinar was moderated by EEOC Regional Director Robert Canino and involved over 90 minutes of detailed remarks from Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows and Acting DOL Wage and Hour Division Director Jessica Looman.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Whistleblower Program under the Biden administration has picked up where it left off under President Obama, aggressively enforcing Rule 21F-17(a) against employers whose policies may impede employees from communicating with the SEC.  On June 23, 2021, the SEC fined Guggenheim Securities, LLC (“Guggenheim”) for maintaining a policy that it contended impeded potential whistleblowers from communicating with the SEC by requiring employees to obtain permission before reporting securities violations. Even though the SEC was unaware of any instances in which a Guggenheim employee was prevented from reporting a potential securities law violation or in which Guggenheim acted to enforce the policy, the SEC nevertheless found that the company had violated Rule 21F-17(a).

On November 6, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit handed down a decision that impacts employers across all industries, including the financial services industry. In a “win” for employers, the Tenth Circuit ruled that “…the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision unambiguously excludes relief for retaliatory acts which occur after the employee has left employment.” Potts v. Center for Excellence in Higher Education, Inc., No. 17-1143 (10th Cir. Nov. 6, 2018).

The False Claims Act (“Act”) imposes liability on any person who knowingly ...

On June 25, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Whistleblower Protection Coordination Act (the “Act”), permanently reinstating the Whistleblower Ombudsman Program, which was created in 2012 to encourage employees of federal government administrative agencies to report wrongdoing but expired on November 27, 2017 due to a five-year sunset clause.

The Act, which Congress passed with bipartisan support, reauthorizes a “Whistleblower Protection Coordinator” at each administrative agency’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) to educate agency ...

Featured on Employment Law This Week:  The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently issued the largest whistleblower awards under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) in history.

Affirming the payout of over $49 million to two whistleblowers and over $33 million to a third for information that led to successful securities law prosecutions. Dodd-Frank established the whistleblower "bounty" program in 2010, and the SEC reports that it has awarded more than $262 million so far, to 53 whistleblowers.

Watch the segment ...

On March 19, 2018, the SEC issued an Order jointly awarding two whistleblowers more than $49 million, and awarding a third whistleblower more than $33 million, for reporting information to the SEC that led to its successful prosecution of an enforcement action against the perpetrators of securities violations.

In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to include Section 21F, entitled “Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection.” Among other things, Section 21F established a whistleblower “bounty” program that entitles ...

Last August, we reported on two significant cease-and-desist orders issued by the SEC that, for the first time, found certain language in the confidentiality and release provisions of separation agreements to violate the SEC’s Rule 21F-17(a), which precludes anyone from impeding any individual (i.e., a whistleblower) from communicating directly with the agency.[1] Since then, the SEC has continued its aggressive oversight of separation and confidentiality agreements, with substantial repercussions for some employers. These orders, a select number of which we summarize ...

Section 806 of SOX prohibits publicly traded companies, as well as their subsidiaries, contractors, subcontractors, and agents, from taking adverse personnel actions against employees for reporting activity that they reasonably believe constitutes mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, or a violation of any Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rule or federal law relating to fraud against shareholders. In recognition of the legislative intent underlying SOX—to provide strong and broad-based protections for employees who report suspected ...

On March 5, 2015, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) issued its “Final Rule” establishing the procedures for handling retaliation complaints brought under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”). Section 806, as amended by Dodd-Frank, protects employees of publicly traded companies, as well as employees of contractors, subcontractors, and agents of publicly traded companies, from being retaliated against for reporting fraudulent activity or other violations of SEC rules and regulations. The Final Rule addresses the comments ...

On Epstein Becker Green’s OSHA Law Update blog, Eric Conn reviews the agreement between the NLRB and OSHA, which allows employees to file out-of-date safety related whistleblower claims to be filed with the NLRB.

Following is an excerpt from the blog post:

On May 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a memorandum discussing a new agreement between NLRB and OSHA regarding a backdoor route for employees to file safety related whistleblower claims that are too stale to be filed with OSHA. The NLRB memo directs OSHA representatives to “notify all complainants ...

On Epstein Becker Green’s OSHA Law Update blog, Eric Conn reviews the agreement between the NLRB and OSHA, which allows employees to file out-of-date safety related whistleblower claims to be filed with the NLRB.

Following is an excerpt from the blog post:

On May 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a memorandum discussing a new agreement between NLRB and OSHA regarding a backdoor route for employees to file safety related whistleblower claims that are too stale to be filed with OSHA. The NLRB memo directs OSHA representatives to “notify all complainants ...

On Epstein Becker Green’s OSHA Law Update blog, Eric Conn reviews the agreement between the NLRB and OSHA, which allows employees to file out-of-date safety related whistleblower claims to be filed with the NLRB.

Following is an excerpt from the blog post:

On May 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a memorandum discussing a new agreement between NLRB and OSHA regarding a backdoor route for employees to file safety related whistleblower claims that are too stale to be filed with OSHA. The NLRB memo directs OSHA representatives to “notify all complainants ...

On May 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a memorandum discussing a new agreement between NLRB and OSHA regarding a backdoor route for employees to file safety related whistleblower claims that are too stale to be filed with OSHA.  The NLRB memo directs OSHA representatives to “notify all complainants who file an untimely [OSHA] whistleblower charge of their right to file a charge with the NLRB.”  As a result of this agreement, employers should expect an increase in the number of unfair labor practice claims filed by employees alleging retaliation for protected safety related whistleblower activity.

Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Section 11(c)) requires employees to file complaints alleging retaliation for protected safety related whistleblower activities within thirty days of the triggering adverse employment action.  The Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Dr. David Michaels, recently testified before the Senate, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Employee and Workplace Safety about OSHA’s whistleblower program.  One of the key points of his testimony was that between 300 and 600 Section 11(c) complaints per year (roughly 10%) were filed beyond the 30-day deadline.  Dr. Michaels added that at least 100 of these complaints barely missed the deadline -- by less than a month.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), on the other hand, addresses different types of claims and also provides for a much longer statute of limitations.  Section 7 of the NLRA provide: “Employees shall have the right to. . . engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual air or protection.”  Section 8 prohibits unfair labor practices that “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.”  The NLRA has a 6-month statute of limitations for claims of unfair labor practices.

Because the NLRA’s statute of limitations is six months longer than the OSH Act’s, OSHA agents will now advise employees who file an untimely Section 11(c) claim that their claims may qualify as unfair labor practices under the NLRA, and explain their rights to file such claims with the NLRB, where their claims could be timely.  For a claim to qualify for protection as an unfair labor practice, however, the claim must involve “concerted activities.”  Thus, not every employee who was unable to file a timely Section 11(c) complaint will have a viable unfair labor practice claim, even if it would be timely under the NLRA.

The NLRB has provided a set of talking points to OSHA to help the OHSA agents discuss these rights with employees:

• OSHA recommends that you contact the NLRB as soon as possible, to inquire about filing a charge
  alleging unfair labor practices.
• The time limit to file a charge with the NLRB is 6 months from the unfair labor practice.
• The NLRB is responsible for enforcing employee rights under the NLRA. The NLRA protects employee rights to act together to try to improve working conditions, including safety and health conditions, even if the employees aren't in a union.
• OSHA may not determine whether you are covered by the NLRA. Please contact the NLRB to discuss your rights under the NLRA.

OSHA also plans to include this information when it sends letters alerting employees that their 11(c) claims are being closed as untimely.

Neither the NLRB nor OSHA has addressed the legal issues posed by this agreement.  Congress intended that employees must file safety related whistleblower complaints very quickly, which is why it set such a short limitations period.  The short deadline for such claims makes sense because safety and health issues pose special risks; i.e., it is not a matter of fairness at stake, it is potentially a matter of life and death, where delays in reporting such issues could have grave consequences.  Creating a loophole or backdoor to extend the filing deadline for claims that could have been timely pursued as 11(c) claims by treating them as NLRA violations could discourage timely reporting under the OSH Act.

By John F. Fullerton

On April 29, 2014, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Dr. David Michaels, recently testified before the Senate Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Employee and Workplace Safety to seek a number of changes to the whistleblower protection provisions of Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) so it would track provisions of other, more recent whistleblower protection laws.  Here is a link to Dr. Michael's testimony.

The provisions at issue are intended to protect employees from retaliation by their employers for ...

My colleague Jason Kaufman and I put together “Five Hot Topics for Financial Services Industry Employers” in this month’s Take 5 newsletter.  Below is an excerpt:

The economy may be improving, but challenges remain for employers in the financial services industry. From ever-increasing whistleblower claims to new diversity and inclusion regulations and recent IRS determinations affecting bonus payments, financial services industry employers will have to navigate a number of new developments and potential pitfalls in 2014. Here are five issues to keep an eye on in the new ...

By John F. Fullerton III

As we reported on Epstein Becker & Green’s Financial Services Employment Law Blog, the Department of Labor - OSHA announced earlier this month that employees protected by the whistleblower provisions in any one of the 22 statutes administered by OSHA, from claims of retaliation under the OSH Act based on workplace safety and health complaints, to financial fraud whistleblower retaliation under the Affordable Care Act or Sarbanes-Oxley, can now file their retaliation complaints with OSHA on-line.  Specifically, in a December 5, 2013 press release, OSHA revealed a new web-based tool available for whistleblowers to submit their complaints to OSHA directly on-line, and introduced the on-line complaint form itself.

In the press release, David Michaels, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, explained that “[t]he ability of workers to speak out and exercise their rights without fear of retaliation provides the backbone for some of American workers’ most essential protections.  Whistleblower laws protect not only workers, but also the public at large and now workers will have an additional avenue available to file a complaint with OSHA.”

The online form, which is already live, provides employees an additional, and for many a much easier, way to file a retaliation complaint to trigger OSHA’s investigative process.   Previously, employees had to mail a written complaint, visit an OSHA office in-person, or place a telephone call to 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) or to one of OSHA’s Regional or Area offices.  Now that filing a complaint is faster, more efficiency, and linked to the familiarity of the internet, we expect an increase in the likelihood that some employees, who might not otherwise have filed complaints, may now do so.

The online form asks employees to list or select from a set of choices the basic information about their complaints.  The complaints will then be followed-up on by investigators, who will contact the whistleblowers to obtain any more detailed information needed by OSHA to determine how to proceed against the employer.

This new accessibility to OSHA for whistleblowing on-line is similar to the on-line ease with which employees can provide tips regarding wrongdoing or apply for bounties under some of the same statutes, such as tips to the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Dodd-Frank Act.  This on-line whistleblower retaliation form is another step in OSHA’s broader effort to make employee protections and information about those protections more accessible to the public.  For example, OSHA had already set up a webpage to educate employees about the whistleblower protections available to them.

The online complaint tool and other web-based outreach to employees is having precisely the effect that OSHA desired, as the number of whistleblower complaints filed with OSHA has grown each of the last five years (i.e., ever year under the current Administration), from 2,160 in FY 2009, to 2,920 in FY 2013.  OSHA released a comprehensive data set reflecting whistleblower activity over the past decade.  In addition to growth in the total number of complaints filed, the number of complaint determinations made by OSHA also grew substantially in 2013 – by nearly 15% to 3,272 (up from 2,865  in FY 2012).  In 2013, however, case determinations by OSHA were much more likely to be made in favor of the whistleblower than in recent years.  Still, cases that OSHA found to have “merit” continue to be rare  --  only 2.3% (or 76 complaints) in FY 2013 were found to have merit.

Our colleague Jang H. Im recently published an article, "The $34 Million Question: What All IT Consulting Companies Should Learn from the Infosys Settlement," pointing out key lessons that all companies, including financial services employers may learn from InfoSys’ immigration issues with the U.S. Department of Justice and the precautionary measures employers should take.

The article is broken down as follows:

1) Beware the Whistleblower
2) Do Not Neglect the Legal Limits on the B-1 Visa Classification
3) Follow the H-1B Requirements Even After Approval
4) Follow the I-9 ...

By John F. Fullerton III

A New York federal district court has become the second court to hold that the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provision, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(a), which prohibits retaliation against a whistleblower who makes disclosures required or protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, among other laws, does not apply extraterritorially.  In Meng-Lin Liu v. Siemens A.G. (pdf), a judge of the Southern District of New York, consistent with a decision earlier this year by a Texas district court, held that a Taiwanese compliance officer working for a Chinese subsidiary of a ...

By Paul Friedman and Meg Thering

Most prudent employers have begun efforts to ensure compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), which is bringing about myriad changes with which employers must comply.  Many employers are evaluating their employee populations, deciding whether it makes economic sense to continue offering coverage, and performing self-audits to ensure compliance.  Employers should also be aware that the Department of Labor has already started auditing employers for compliance.  What many employers may not be aware of, however, is that employees may bring whistleblower claims for violations of the ACA – and these claims will be policed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”).

The ACA prohibits retaliation against employees (as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act) for receiving cost sharing reductions or tax credits on a Health Insurance Exchange (or Marketplace), and it prohibits retaliation against employees who report alleged violations of Title I of the ACA.  Employees who believe they have been retaliated against in violation of these rules can file a complaint with OSHA within 180 days of the alleged violation.  Here is a link to OSHA's Fact Sheet providing more information about these provisions.

OSHA's Fact Sheet explains: "To further these goals, the Affordable Care Act’s section 1558 provides protection to employees against retaliation by an employer for reporting alleged violations of Title I of the Act or for receiving a health insurance tax credit or cost sharing reductions as a result of participating in a Health Insurance Exchange, or Marketplace."

The period just closed (on April 28, 2013) for comments on the interim final rule published by OSHA of “Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act.”

By:  John F. Fullerton III

On March 5, 2013, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the burden-shifting framework applicable to whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.  In Bechtel v. Administrative Review Board et al., (pdf), the Court issued a decision, consistent with prior decisions of several other Circuits, that affirmed the burden of proof standard applied by the Administrative Review Board (ARB) in its decision, which affirmed an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision that had dismissed the ...

Before the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd Frank”) was enacted, whistleblower claims by registered representatives, including those arising pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) were subject to mandatory arbitration at FINRA.  See FINRA Notice 12-21 (PDF).  Dodd Frank changed that.  Dodd Frank specifically amended SOX to provide that “[n]o dispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable, if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under this section.”  In addition, SOX was also amended to ...

Guest Post By: H. David Kotz

H. David Kotz is a Managing Director at Gryphon Strategies, a full-service investigation firm, which he joined in January 2012 after serving for over four years as the Inspector General for the SEC.  He was a guest speaker at Epstein Becker & Green’s March 7, 2012 breakfast briefing, “2012’s Key Issues for Financial Services Employers.”

The head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Whistleblower program reported on March 14, 2012 that the SEC Whistleblower program has been receiving a continuous volume of complaints since the ...

In a recent article “Food Safety and Whistleblowing – New Federal Law May Deliver a Full Basket of Claims,” EBG partners Allen Roberts and John Houston Pope discuss the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”), which was signed into law on January 4, 2011. 

This new federal law could have a significant impact on restaurateurs, clubs, and other hospitality employers who manufacture, distribute, transport, receive, hold or import food.  FSMA opens wide a new door to whistleblower activity and protection, necessitating employer attention to related compliance ...