18 U.S.C. § 1514A

Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies.—No company with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l), or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) including any subsidiary or affiliate whose financial information is included in the consolidated financial statements of such company, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c),11 So in original. Another closing parenthesis probably should precede the comma. or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee—(1) to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information or assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted by—(A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;(B) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or(C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct); or(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.(b)Enforcement Action.—(1)In general.—A person who alleges discharge or other discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c), by—(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or(B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy.(2)Procedure.—(A)In general.—An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.(B)Exception.—Notification made under section 42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person named in the complaint and to the employer.(C)Burdens of proof.—An action brought under paragraph (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.(D)Statute of limitations.—An action under paragraph (1) shall be commenced not later than 180 days after the date on which the violation occurs, or after the date on which the employee became aware of the violation.(E)Jury trial.—A party to an action brought under paragraph (1)(B) shall be entitled to trial by jury.(c)Remedies.—(1)In general.—An employee prevailing in any action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole.(2)Compensatory damages.—Relief for any action under paragraph (1) shall include—(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discrimination;(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.(d)Rights Retained by Employee.—Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any Federal or State law, or under any collective bargaining agreement.(e)Nonenforceability of Certain Provisions Waiving Rights and Remedies or Requiring Arbitration of Disputes.—(1)Waiver of rights and remedies.—The rights and remedies provided for in this section may not be waived by any agreement, policy form, or condition of employment, including by a predispute arbitration agreement.(2)Predispute arbitration agreements.—No predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable, if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under this section.(Added Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 806(a), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 802; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title IX, §§ 922(b), (c), 929A, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1848, 1852.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–203, § 929A, in introductory provisions, inserted “including any subsidiary or affiliate whose financial information is included in the consolidated financial statements of such company” after “the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d))”.

Pub. L. 111–203, § 922(b), in introductory provisions, inserted “or nationally recognized statistical rating organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c),” before “or any officer,” and “or nationally recognized statistical rating organization” before “, may discharge,”.

Subsec. (b)(2)(D). Pub. L. 111–203, § 922(c)(1)(A), substituted “180” for “90” and inserted “, or after the date on which the employee became aware of the violation” before period at end.

Subsec. (b)(2)(E). Pub. L. 111–203, § 922(c)(1)(B), added subpar. (E).

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 111–203, § 922(c)(2), added subsec. (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5301 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 487 cases (151 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Ruben Carnero v. Boston Sci. Corp., 433 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ruben Carnero v. Boston Sci. Corp., 433 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 29× “The district court determined that Carnero, an Argentinian citizen resident in Brazil who worked for the two BSC subsidiaries and whose whistleblowing pertained to their alleged improprieties in Latin America, could not sue BSC under the whistleblower protection provision…”

Jeffrey Wiest v. Thomas Lynch, 710 F.3d 121 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 20× “Appellant Jeffrey Wiest brought an action under the whistleblower protection provisions set forth in Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, and under Pennsylvania law against Appellees Tyco Electronics Corporation and several officers and directors of…”

Daly v. Citigroup Inc., 939 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 12× “Separately, Dodd‐Frank amended the SOX whistleblower retaliation provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, to include an anti‐arbitration provision, which reads: (1) Waiver of rights and remedies.”

Digit. Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018). · cites it 10× “See 18 U. S. C. §1514A. Section 1514A prohibits certain companies from discharg- ing or otherwise “discriminat[ing] against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because” the employee “provid[es] information .”

Livingston v. Wyeth, Inc., 520 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2008). · cites it 26× “OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Relying on the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, Mark Livingston commenced this action against his employer Wyeth, Inc.”

Jeffrey Wiest v. Tyco Elec. Corp, 812 F.3d 319 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 11× “INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Jeffrey Wiest, appeals from the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant, Tyco Electronics Corporation (“Tyco”), in his action alleging that Tyco violated the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.…”

Lawson v. Fmr Co., Inc., 670 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2012). · cites it 34× “This interlocutory appeal is from the district court's order denying a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. See Lawson v.…”

Andrea Jones v. Southpeak Interactive Corp., 777 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2015). · cites it 15× “The claims included one count of retaliation pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, and one count of retaliation pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), 15 U.”

Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2014). · cites it 11× “745 , 802-04 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A). The district court (Forrest, J.”

Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014). · cites it 11× “A provision of the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, protects whistleblowers.”

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Admin. Review Bd., 717 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2013). · cites it 12× “18 U.S.C. § 1514A. The regulations implementing Section 806, as well as the decisions of numerous circuit courts, establish the elements of a prima facie claim for violation of § 1514A.”

Apostolos Xanthopoulos v. LABR, 991 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2021). · cites it 13× “More specifi- cally, § 1514A(a)(1) prohibits certain companies from dis- charging and discriminating “in the terms and conditions of employment” against an employee who (among other things) “provide[s] information … or otherwise assist[s] in an inves- tigation regarding any…”

Show all 487 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(1)(C) — 1 case

Wadler v. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(2)(A) — 2 cases

Anita Johnson v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (11th Cir. 2020).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a) — 122 cases

Lawson v. Fmr Co., Inc., 670 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2012). “This interlocutory appeal is from the district court's order denying a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. See Lawson v.…”

Halliburton, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., 771 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2014).

Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., 944 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2019).

Ruben Carnero v. Boston Sci. Corp., 433 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005). “The district court determined that Carnero, an Argentinian citizen resident in Brazil who worked for the two BSC subsidiaries and whose whistleblowing pertained to their alleged improprieties in Latin America, could not sue BSC under the whistleblower protection provision…”

Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014). “A provision of the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, protects whistleblowers.”

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1) — 74 cases

Jeffrey Wiest v. Thomas Lynch, 710 F.3d 121 (3rd Cir. 2013). “Appellant Jeffrey Wiest brought an action under the whistleblower protection provisions set forth in Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, and under Pennsylvania law against Appellees Tyco Electronics Corporation and several officers and directors of…”

Digit. Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018). “See 18 U. S. C. §1514A. Section 1514A prohibits certain companies from discharg- ing or otherwise “discriminat[ing] against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because” the employee “provid[es] information .”

Livingston v. Wyeth, Inc., 520 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2008). “OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Relying on the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, Mark Livingston commenced this action against his employer Wyeth, Inc.”

Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp. v. US Dep't of Labor, 927 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2019).

Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., 944 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2019).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1)(A) — 1 case

Kuba v. Disney Fin. Servs., LLC (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1)(C) — 22 cases

Kuhns v. Ledger, 202 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Daly v. Citigroup Inc., 939 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2019). “Separately, Dodd‐Frank amended the SOX whistleblower retaliation provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, to include an anti‐arbitration provision, which reads: (1) Waiver of rights and remedies.”

Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008).

JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Jennings, 473 F. Supp. 2d 705 (E.D. Va. 2007).

Somers v. Digit. Realty Trust, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1)(c) — 1 case

Van Asdale v. Intl Game Tech. (9th Cir. 2009).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(2) — 1 case

Lindsey Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 119 F.4th 299 (3rd Cir. 2024).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(SOX) — 1 case

United States Ex Rel. Bias v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 816 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2016).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(l) — 48 cases

Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2014). “745 , 802-04 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A). The district court (Forrest, J.”

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Admin. Review Bd., 717 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2013). “18 U.S.C. § 1514A. The regulations implementing Section 806, as well as the decisions of numerous circuit courts, establish the elements of a prima facie claim for violation of § 1514A.”

Leshinsky v. Telvent GIT, S.A., 942 F. Supp. 2d 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 359 P.3d 746 (Wash. 2015).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(l)(A) — 2 cases

Feldman v. Law Enf't Assocs. Corp., 779 F. Supp. 2d 472 (E.D.N.C. 2011).

Feldman v. Law Enf't Assocs. Corp., 955 F. Supp. 2d 528 (E.D.N.C. 2013).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(l)(C) — 15 cases

Kuhns v. Ledger, 202 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Guyden v. Aetna, Inc., 544 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2008).

Feldman v. Law Enf't Assocs. Corp., 779 F. Supp. 2d 472 (E.D.N.C. 2011).

Ashmore v. CGI Grp. Inc., 138 F. Supp. 3d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 359 P.3d 746 (Wash. 2015).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(l)(c) — 2 cases

Van Asdale v. Int'l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009).

Smith v. Corning Inc., 496 F. Supp. 2d 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2007).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b) — 38 cases

Newman v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 901 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2018).

Welch v. Chao, 536 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 2008).

Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2014). “745 , 802-04 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A). The district court (Forrest, J.”

Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014). “A provision of the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, protects whistleblowers.”

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1) — 8 cases

Abdul Jaludi v. Citigroup, 57 F.4th 148 (3rd Cir. 2023).

Tice v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 325 F. App'x 114 (3rd Cir. 2009).

Prkic v. Sezzle Inc. (D. Colo. 2025).

Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (D.N.J. 2023).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1)(A) — 29 cases

Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd., United States Dep't of Labor, 710 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2013).

Lindsey Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 119 F.4th 299 (3rd Cir. 2024).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1)(B) — 41 cases

Lindsey Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 119 F.4th 299 (3rd Cir. 2024).

Andrea Jones v. Southpeak Interactive Corp., 777 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2015). “The claims included one count of retaliation pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, and one count of retaliation pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), 15 U.”

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1)(b) — 1 case

Nelson v. Indegene, Inc. (D.N.J. 2025).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2) — 19 cases

Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014). “A provision of the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, protects whistleblowers.”

Tice v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 325 F. App'x 114 (3rd Cir. 2009).

Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009).

Murray v. TXU Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d 799 (N.D. Tex. 2003).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(A) — 35 cases

Villanueva v. United States Dep't of Labor, 743 F.3d 103 (5th Cir. 2014).

Coppinger-Martin v. Solis, 627 F.3d 745 (9th Cir. 2010).

Van Asdale v. Int'l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009).

John Scott Bechtel, United States Dep't of Labor, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Competitive Tech., Inc., Docket No. 05-2404-Cv, 448 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 2006).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(C) — 21 cases

Jeffrey Wiest v. Tyco Elec. Corp, 812 F.3d 319 (3rd Cir. 2016). “INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Jeffrey Wiest, appeals from the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant, Tyco Electronics Corporation (“Tyco”), in his action alleging that Tyco violated the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.…”

Harp v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 558 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2009).

Murray v. UBS Sec., LLC, 601 U.S. 23 (2024).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(D) — 31 cases

Apostolos Xanthopoulos v. LABR, 991 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2021). “More specifi- cally, § 1514A(a)(1) prohibits certain companies from dis- charging and discriminating “in the terms and conditions of employment” against an employee who (among other things) “provide[s] information … or otherwise assist[s] in an inves- tigation regarding any…”

Abdul Jaludi v. Citigroup, 57 F.4th 148 (3rd Cir. 2023).

Newman v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 901 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2018).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(E) — 3 cases

Murray v. TXU Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d 799 (N.D. Tex. 2003).

Barker v. UBS AG, 888 F. Supp. 2d 291 (D. Conn. 2012).

Edwards v. First Trust Portfolios LP (N.D. Tex. 2025).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(l) — 12 cases

Khaled Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013).

Stone v. Instrumentation Lab'y Co., 591 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2009).

John Scott Bechtel, United States Dep't of Labor, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Competitive Tech., Inc., Docket No. 05-2404-Cv, 448 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 2006).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(l)(A) — 18 cases

Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2014). “745 , 802-04 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A). The district court (Forrest, J.”

Hanna v. WCI Communities, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2004).

Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009).

Jordan v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 3 F. Supp. 3d 917 (D. Kan. 2014).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(l)(B) — 30 cases

Hanna v. WCI Communities, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2004).

Stone v. Instrumentation Lab'y Co., 591 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2009).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c) — 18 cases

Grissom v. the Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2008).

Paul Somers v. Digit. Realty Trust, Inc., 850 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(1) — 10 cases

Prout v. Vladeck, 316 F. Supp. 3d 784 (S.D. Ill. 2018).

Deltek, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 649 F. App'x 320 (4th Cir. 2016).

Halliburton, Inc. v. LABR (5th Cir. 2014).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2) — 12 cases

Khaled Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013).

Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009).

Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 359 P.3d 746 (Wash. 2015).

Ahmad v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 2 F. Supp. 3d 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2)(A) — 4 cases

Stewart v. Everyware Global, Inc., 68 F. Supp. 3d 759 (S.D. Ohio 2014).

Jones v. Southpeak Interactive Corp., 986 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Va. 2013).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2)(B) — 4 cases

Boris Khazin v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp, 773 F.3d 488 (3rd Cir. 2014).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2)(C) — 4 cases

Grissom v. the Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2008).

Zwick v. Inteliquent, Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 804 (N.D. Ill. 2015).

Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (N.D. Fla. 2012).

Somers v. Digit. Realty Trust, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(l) — 15 cases

Grissom v. the Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2008).

Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 359 P.3d 746 (Wash. 2015).

Halliburton, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., 771 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2014).

Leslie Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 750 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2014).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(d) — 7 cases

Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 359 P.3d 746 (Wash. 2015).

Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 332 P.3d 1085 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

Repetti v. Sysco Corp., 2007 WI App 49 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).

Tice v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 325 F. App'x 114 (3rd Cir. 2009).

Gregg Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., d/b/a (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(e) — 11 cases

Abdul Jaludi v. Citigroup, 933 F.3d 246 (3rd Cir. 2019).

Armand Santoro v. Accenture Fed. Servs., LL, 748 F.3d 217 (4th Cir. 2014).

Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp. v. US Dep't of Labor, 927 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2019).

Hanna v. WCI Communities, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (S.D. Fla. 2004).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(e)(1) — 3 cases

SER Ocwen Loan Servicing v. Hon. Carrie Webster, Judge, 752 S.E.2d 372 (W. Va. 2013).

Weller v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (D. Colo. 2013).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(e)(2) — 19 cases

Lloyd v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 791 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2015).

Boris Khazin v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp, 773 F.3d 488 (3rd Cir. 2014).

Abdul Jaludi v. Citigroup, 933 F.3d 246 (3rd Cir. 2019).

Armand Santoro v. Accenture Fed. Servs., LL, 748 F.3d 217 (4th Cir. 2014).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(e)(l) — 6 cases

Grissom v. the Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2008).

Leslie Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 750 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2014).

Van Asdale v. Int'l Game Tech., 763 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2014).

Boris Khazin v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp, 773 F.3d 488 (3rd Cir. 2014).

Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., 305 F.R.D. 107 (E.D. Mo. 2015).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.