We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In Khazin v. TD Ameritrade, No. 14-1689,
2014 WL 6871393 (3rd Cir. Dec. 8, 2014), the Third
Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision compelling
arbitration of a Dodd-Frank whistleblower retaliation claim.
This is the first circuit court decision to address whether such
claims are arbitrable, and the decision is consistent with
two district court opinions that have previously addressed the
issue.
Khazin alleged that TD Ameritrade terminated his employment in
retaliation for reporting a potential securities regulation
violation to his supervisor. He filed a Dodd-Frank
whistleblower claim under the securities whistleblower provision
and TD Ameritrade moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the
arbitration clause in Khazin's employment agreement.
On appeal, Khazin argued that the arbitration clause was not
enforceable in light of an anti-arbitration provision found in
Dodd-Frank's amendments to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
("SOX"), which states that "[n]o predispute
arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable, if the
agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under this
section." But applying a plain reading of the statutes,
the Third Circuit held that SOX's anti-arbitration provision
did not apply to the Dodd-Frank securities retaliation claim raised
by Khazin, because the latter is "not located within the same
title of the United States Code, let alone the same section"
as SOX's anti-arbitration provision. The court
rejected Khazin's contention that Congress unintentionally
omitted the anti-arbitration language from the Dodd-Frank
securities retaliation statute while including the language in the
commodities whistleblower provision, the consumer financial
protection whistleblower provision, and in SOX's whistleblower
provision, reasoning that the "fact that Congress did not
append an anti-arbitration provision to the Dodd-Frank cause of
action while contemporaneously adding such provisions elsewhere
suggests ... that the omission was deliberate."
Notably, the Third Circuit affirmed on a different ground than
that relied upon by the district court in compelling
arbitration. The District Court of New Jersey had compelled
arbitration on the ground that SOX's anti-arbitration provision
did not apply retroactively to invalidate the arbitration clause
within Khazin's employment agreement, which predated
it. In reaching its conclusion, the Third Circuit
"express[ed] no opinion on whether the District Court properly
concluded that the Anti-Arbitration Provision does not invalidate
preexisting agreements."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Employers began to rethink how they obtain authorization and retrieve background and credit checks for new employees after the Ninth Circuit's decision in Gilberg v. California Check Cashing
Under the wage orders issued by California's Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), "[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits...
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently held in Solak v. Welch, No. 2018-0810-KSJM (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2019), that a plaintiff's letter to a board of directors suggesting the board look...
On November 22, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the court with jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, handed down a decision that invalidates...
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
US Disputes: Can You Avoid A Court Battle? (Video)
