Published on Security Management (http://www.securitymanagement.com)
Elswhere in the Courts: Whistleblowers
By
July 2008



    
Print Edition Only: 
No
Weight: 
0
Beyond Print?: 
Yes
Issue: 
July 2008 [1]
Teaser: 

A federal appeals court ruled [2] that an employer, Stewart Enterprises, did not retaliate against three employees when it laid them off during a reduction in force. The employees filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of labor arguing that they were let go because they complained about faulty accounting and computer procedures and that the terminations were a violation of the whistleblower provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley. The court found that while the relevant procedures were not stellar business practices, they were not illegal and, therefore, not covered by Sarbanes-Oxley.

A federal appeals court ruled [3] that an employer, Stewart Enterprises, did not retaliate against three employees when it laid them off during a reduction in force. The employees filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of labor arguing that they were let go because they complained about faulty accounting and computer procedures and that the terminations were a violation of the whistleblower provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley. The court found that while the relevant procedures were not stellar business practices, they were not illegal and, therefore, not covered by Sarbanes-Oxley.

Related Resources: 

Comments


Security Management is the award-winning publication of ASIS International, the preeminent international
organization for security professionals, with more than 35,000 members worldwide.

ASIS International, Inc. Worldwide Headquarters USA, 1625 Prince Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2818
703-519-6200 | fax 703-519-6299 | www.asisonline.org
ASIS
Copyright © 2008, Security Management

Powered by: Phase2 Technology

Source URL: http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/elswhere-courts-whistleblowers

Links:
[1] http://www.securitymanagement.com/magazine/2008/07
[2] http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-60849-CV0.wpd.pdf
[3] http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-60849-CV0.wpd.pdf