Legal Sidebari

Blowing the Whistle Indoors: Can Internal
Whistleblowers Sue for Retaliation Under
Dodd-Frank?
October 19, 2017
In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (also known as Dodd-Frank),
Congress established new incentives and protections for whistleblowers who report certain violations of
securities laws. This November, in Digital Realty Trust Incorporated v. Somers, the Supreme Court is
scheduled to hear oral argument on the scope of who may qualify as a “whistleblower” for purposes of the
Act’s anti-retaliation provisions. Specifically, the Court will consider whether internal whistleblowers—
i.e., those who report violations within their organizations but not to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (Commission)—can sue their employers for retaliation under the Act.
The dispute in Digital Realty, which centers on the interplay between Dodd-Frank’s definition of a
“whistleblower” and the anti-retaliation provision’s reference to disclosures made pursuant to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, raises significant issues not only for securities law enforcement and companies’
internal compliance programs, but also for broader matters of statutory interpretation.
Background: Whistleblower Protections under Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank
The most significant whistleblower protection provision in federal securities law before Dodd-Frank’s
was in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which Congress enacted in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom
accounting scandals in 2002. SOX’s anti-retaliation provision generally protects an “employee” who
provides information regarding a suspected violation of certain securities laws to any of three classes of
people: (1) a federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, (2) a Member or Committee of Congress, or
(3) “a person with supervisory authority over the employee” working for the same employer.
Significantly, as related to the third category, SOX also mandated that public companies’ audit
committees establish procedures for internal complaints and reporting of suspected abuses within the
company. SOX and other laws even require a company’s auditors and attorneys to report internally before
reporting violations to an outside agency. Commentators have noted that the internal reporting regime
under SOX has been widely integrated into corporate compliance programs over the past 15 years.
SOX allows employees who believe they have been penalized for their reporting activity or for their
assistance to law enforcement to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within 180 days, and they
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10015
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
can bring an action in federal court only if the Secretary does not act on their complaint within another
180 days. As for remedies, employees are entitled to reinstatement, backpay, and special damages (which
may include, for example, damages for emotional injury).
With Dodd-Frank, Congress intended to enhance securities law whistleblowing processes through a new
and relatively robust whistleblowing program. For example, Congress provided for monetary incentives
(i.e., “bounties”) for individuals reporting certain violations of securities laws and strengthened anti-
retaliation protections for whistleblowers in several respects. In contrast to SOX, Dodd-Frank does not
first require filing an administrative complaint to sue in court for retaliation, the statute of limitations is
much longer (between three and ten years, depending on the circumstances), and the remedies can include
reinstatement and double backpay.
In terms of protected activity, Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits an employer from
retaliating against “a whistleblower” “because of” three types of activity. First, the provision protects
whistleblowers who provide information regarding securities law violations to the Commission. Second,
the provision also applies to whistleblowers who assist the Commission in an investigation or proceeding.
Third, and most relevant to Digital Realty, the anti-retaliation provision further specifies that it protects
whistleblowers who “mak[e] disclosures that are required or protected under [SOX],” among other laws.
Dispute Regarding Appropriate Reading of Dodd-Frank
The third category of protected activity under Dodd-Frank does not suggest that the whistleblower needs
to have made any disclosures to the Commission in order to recover. However, the definition of the term
“whistleblower” in Dodd-Frank complicates reaching a conclusion that internal whistleblowers are
protected under the Act. The definition refers to individuals who provide “information relating to a
violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the
Commission,” suggesting that an individual must report to the Commission to benefit from the
subsection’s protections.
This tension between Dodd-Frank’s definition of the term “whistleblower” and its incorporation of SOX
in the anti-retaliation provision is the issue on appeal in Digital Realty. Paul Somers, when he was a Vice
President at Digital Realty, complained internally to the company’s management regarding alleged
accounting abuses. Digital Realty fired Somers soon afterwards. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Somers was
entitled to sue under Dodd-Frank, even though he did not take the additional step of reporting his
concerns to the Commission. The Second Circuit reached the same result in a similar case in 2015. But
the Fifth Circuit took a different view in 2013, ruling that a “whistleblower” must have reported a
complaint to the Commission. These decisions have created a circuit split over the proper reading of
Dodd-Frank.
Lower Courts’ Views of Who Qualifies as a “Whistleblower”
The lower court in Digital Realty reasoned that Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision’s specific SOX
references and the overall purpose of the statute indicated Congress’s intent to protect internal
whistleblowers as well as those who report to the Commission. Notably, there is no mention of the third
category of protected activity, which was added late in the drafting process in the conference committee,
in the conference report or final passage debates in either the House or Senate. The Ninth Circuit also
agreed with the Second Circuit that, even if the term “whistleblower” raises ambiguity in the anti-
retaliation provision, the Commission’s own interpretation is entitled to deference under Chevron
principles. In its Dodd-Frank regulations, the Commission has defined the term “whistleblower” to
encompass internal whistleblowers, explaining that a more limited reading would chill employees’ use of
valuable internal reporting processes.

---

Congressional Research Service
3
The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, ruled in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C. that a Dodd-Frank
“whistleblower” can only be someone who reports a complaint to the Commission. In analyzing the
statutory language, the Fifth Circuit determined that the reference to SOX in the anti-retaliation provision
does not expand the definition of a “whistleblower” and concluded that it would be inappropriate to read
the words “to the Commission” out of the definition. The Fifth Circuit hypothesized at least one scenario
in which the third category of Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections would apply under a more limited
reading of the definition: an employee reports both internally and to the Commission (the latter making
them a “whistleblower”), but is retaliated against only “because of” the internal report (e.g., if the
employer was unaware of the report to the Commission). The Fifth Circuit further reasoned that the anti-
retaliation scheme for internal reporting that exists under SOX would essentially be rendered “moot” if
the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provisions were to apply, because whistleblowers would be more inclined
to take advantage of Dodd-Frank’s stronger protections.
In Digital Realty, the Supreme Court is set to resolve these different readings of Dodd-Frank. According
to some commentators, a ruling for Digital Realty would limit the availability of a relatively powerful
mechanism for deterring retaliation against internal whistleblowers, undermining corporate compliance
programs for internal reporting. A ruling for Somers, on the other hand, according to others, could
increase costs and burdens for companies faced with potentially increased numbers of federal court
whistleblower actions.
Implications for Statutory Interpretation
In addition to clarifying the bounds of Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation protections, Digital Realty may also
provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to shed light on several statutory interpretation principles,
particularly in the aftermath of its ruling in King v. Burwell—a 2015 decision regarding the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Like King, Digital Realty raises issues of the extent to which a court should look to the broader purpose
and operation of a statute in interpreting particular statutory provisions. In King, a case that concerned the
interpretation of a tax credit provision in the ACA, the Court rejected a reading of the provision that, in
the view of the majority, would undermine “the operation of the entire statute.” The majority in the Ninth
Circuit concluded that the context of Dodd-Frank, like the context of the ACA in King, was critical to
interpreting the anti-retaliation provision, while the dissent posited that the analysis in King should be
relegated to its facts.
The Supreme Court may address King’s reach in resolving the dispute in Digital Realty. More broadly,
Digital Realty appears to implicate a pot-pourri of sometimes competing statutory canons, such as the
rule against superfluity of statutory language, the import of Chevron deference, and other canons
concerning related statutory schemes. The Digital Realty decision is therefore likely to have broader
importance beyond securities law.
Oral argument in Digital Realty has been scheduled for November 28.

---

Congressional Research Service
4

Author Information

Nicole Vanatko

Legislative Attorney




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10015 · VERSION 2 · NEW

---