Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660 [Arg: 10.10.2023]
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
![Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660 [Arg: 10.10.2023]](https://img.transistor.fm/1NLWTvHUMJfAwm0D9fQ8_UTy6M45vxMAxdVAqQfxRzg/rs:fill:800:800:1/q:60/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9lcGlz/b2RlLzE1NDIzNTkv/MTY5NzAzMTcxOS1h/cnR3b3JrLmpwZw.webp)