A
recent study from the University of Nebraska College
of Law has concluded that under Sarbanes-Oxley federal protection (since
its inception in 2002), whistleblowers
aren’t very successful in winning lawsuits against former employers after
suffering retaliation. The study found that only 3.6% of all cases brought
to administrative hearings by whistleblowers have resulted in successes. (Add.
Article)
From a Financial Times article:
The Government
Accountability Group, a non-profit organisation that lobbies for whistle-blowers,
described Sarbox in 2002 as "a revolution in corporate governance freedom
of speech". Its president, Louis Clark, now says it is "a disaster".
Whistle-blowers struggle to win cases because Osha and judges
who hear claims and appeals have tended to reject them either on a narrow
reading of procedure or after deciding that claims "fail to fit within the
exact legal parameters of a Sarbanes-Oxley claim", the study says.
Jason Zuckerman, a lawyer at The Employment Law Group, a law
firm that represents Sarbox whistle-blowers, says: "Part of the problem is
that investigators misunderstand the relevant legal standards and believe that
a complainant must have a smoking gun – that is, unequivocal evidence proving
retaliation."