The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to once again wade into the long-running whistleblower battle between UBS and its former research analyst, shutting down a renewed appeal in a case that has already ricocheted through the federal courts for years. The dispute centered on a critical legal question: under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, must whistleblowers prove retaliation—or discrimination—to win?
A Whistleblower’s Second Bid Falls Short
Trevor Murray, the ex-UBS analyst whose claim was revived by the high court just last year, had asked the justices to overturn a new Second Circuit ruling that dismantled his nearly $1 million jury verdict. The appeals court vacated the award after determining that the jury instructions in his trial were overly broad, introducing ambiguity into what qualifies as a “contributing factor” in a retaliatory firing.
Neither Murray’s attorneys nor UBS responded to requests for comment on the latest development.
A High-Stakes Definition: What Is a ‘Contributing Factor’?
The Legal Meaning at the Heart of the Case
Murray had urged the Supreme Court to clarify whether a contributing factor under federal whistleblower law includes anything that “alone or together with other forces tends to affect an employment decision”—a standard embraced by several appellate courts. The phrase appears in the Aviation Investment and Reform Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b), and serves as the backbone of whistleblower protections across multiple sectors.
Supporters of Murray—including major whistleblower advocacy organizations and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.—warned that the Second Circuit’s stance created a “deep and direct conflict” by narrowing the reach of Sarbanes-Oxley, legislation designed to ensure corporate accountability in financial reporting.
