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.

A Verdict Won, Lost, Revived—Then Lost Again

Murray initially secured more than $900,000 in 2017 when a Manhattan federal jury found he was illegally terminated after alerting UBS leadership that he was being pressured to manipulate his research. But the Second Circuit reversed that win in 2022, ruling that Sarbanes-Oxley plaintiffs must prove their employer acted with retaliatory intent.

In 2024, the Supreme Court revived the case, unanimously rejecting the retaliatory intent requirement. The justices held that whistleblowers need only show that their protected activity contributed to the adverse action; from there, the burden shifts to the employer to prove it would have taken the same action regardless—an intentionally plaintiff-friendly structure crafted by Congress.

Yet on remand, the Second Circuit again tossed Murray’s verdict, concluding in a divided ruling that the trial judge instructed the jury using an excessively expansive definition of “contributing factor,” allowing jurors to find liability if the protected activity merely “tended to affect” UBS’ decision.

A New Appeal Shut Down

Murray’s latest petition contended that the high court never addressed the statutory meaning of “contributing factor” during its 2024 review, and he argued that the Second Circuit’s interpretation conflicts with other circuits and with positions taken by the U.S. Department of Labor.

UBS countered that lower courts should be free to sort out trial-level questions—such as jury instruction standards—before the Supreme Court intervenes again.

The justices agreed, declining to take up the case.

Counsel

Murray is represented by:

• Robert L. Herbst and Benjamin J. Ashmore Sr., Herbst Law PLLC

• Scott A. Korenbaum, Scott A. Korenbaum Esq.

• Robert B. Stulberg and Patrick J. Walsh, Stulberg & Walsh LLP

• Easha Anand and Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

UBS is represented by:

• Eugene Scalia, Thomas G. Hungar, Andrew G.I. Kilberg, Aaron Smith, Andrew Y. Ebrahem, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP