United States: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers Must Report To The SEC

On November 28, 2017, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument on whether the anti-retaliation protections afforded to whistleblowers under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) apply to individuals who have reported potential violations of the federal securities laws internally to their employers, but not to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission). In Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers (No. 16-1276), on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court will resolve a circuit split on the issue. The Ninth and Second Circuits applied Chevron deference 1 to the SEC's interpretive rule that individuals are not required to report to the SEC to be entitled to Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation protections. The Fifth Circuit held that Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision did not apply to internal reporting because the statute defines "whistleblower" as an individual who provides information regarding securities violations to the Commission.

The Supreme Court's decision may have significant implications for companies, as well as for auditors, attorneys, and certain other categories of potential whistleblowers who are subject to mandatory internal reporting requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX).


Paul Somers made several reports regarding possible securities law violations to members of senior management of his employer, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (Digital Realty), a publicly traded real-estate investment trust. Mr. Somers was later terminated and sued Digital Realty alleging that his termination was in violation of Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provisions. Digital Realty moved to dismiss, arguing that because Mr. Somers had reported only internally, and not to the SEC, he was not a "whistleblower" within the meaning of Dodd-Frank. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, and a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the anti-retaliation provision of Dodd-Frank applied to an individual who reports alleged misconduct internally, regardless of whether the individual makes a report to the SEC. 2

The Statutory Regimes

Both Dodd-Frank in 2010 and SOX in 2002 were enacted in the wake of financial crises. Both statutes provide incentives and protections to individuals who voluntarily report suspected wrongdoing, and both create a private right of action for whistleblowers to sue their employers for retaliatory actions. However, important distinctions exist. For example, Dodd Frank provides: (i) direct access to federal courts without the initial requirement of filing a claim with a federal agency; 3 (ii) greater monetary damages under most circumstances; 4 and (iii) a substantially longer statute of limitations. 5

The question of whether Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision protects the broad category of whistleblowers recognized under SOX has prompted an SEC rule and has divided the federal courts. SOX contains an anti-retaliation provision that provides whistleblower protections for "employees" of publicly traded companies who, among other things, provide information regarding certain alleged violations to an internal supervisor, a federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, or Congress. 6 Section 21F(a)(6) of the later-enacted Dodd-Frank Act expressly defines a "whistleblower" as "any individual who provides . . . information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission." 7 However, subdivision (iii) of Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision expressly references SOX, providing that "[n]o employer may" retaliate against "a whistleblower . . . because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower" in providing information to or assisting the Commission or "in making disclosures that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 . . . and any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission." 8

A key question is whether Dodd-Frank's explicit reference to SOX provisions that do not require reporting to the SEC expands the categories of individuals protected by Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision beyond its more narrow definition of "whistleblowers" (i.e., those who report to the SEC). While some argue that the statutory definition of "whistleblower" as one who provides information "to the Commission" is a clear limitation, others argue that to apply that definition as a limit on Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation protections would all but read subdivision (iii) out of the anti-retaliation provision and would produce perverse results. Proponents of the more expansive interpretation note that certain professionals, such as attorneys and auditors, are subject to mandatory internal reporting requirements under SOX. 9 Auditors, who are subject to Section 78j-1–a section explicitly referenced in Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision–must await the company's response and determine that it has failed to take the appropriate remedial actions before they may report to the SEC. 10 Attorneys are subject to similar requirements. 11

The SEC Interpretive Rule

Cognizant of this tension, the SEC promulgated in 2011 an interpretive rule that defined "whistleblower" for purposes of Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision to include internal-only reporting. Specifically, Exchange Act Rule 21-F provides that for the purposes of the anti-retaliation protections under Dodd-Frank, a whistleblower is an individual who reasonably believes there has been a possible securities law violation and "provide[s] that information in a manner described in Section 21F(h)(1)(A)." 12 In the accompanying release, the SEC explicitly stated that the "change to the rule reflects the fact that the [Dodd-Frank] statutory anti-retaliation protections apply to three different categories of whistleblowers, and the third category includes individuals who report to persons or governmental authorities other than the Commission."13

The Circuit Split

The SEC's 2011 rule interpretation did not resolve the issue. In the years since, a number of alleged whistleblowers who reported suspected wrongdoing internally, but not to the SEC, have sued their former employers for retaliation under Dodd-Frank, with mixed results.

The Fifth Circuit was the first appeals court to address this question. In Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013), the Fifth Circuit strictly construed the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provision to protect only those who report to the SEC. 14 Noting that Dodd-Frank and SOX provide distinct remedies for whistleblowers, the Court also expressed concerns that the SOX enforcement scheme might be rendered moot from a practical perspective because whistleblowers would have little incentive to pursue retaliation claims under SOX due to the perceived advantages (discussed above) of pursuing them under Dodd-Frank. 15

The Second Circuit arrived at the opposite conclusion in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy LLC, 801 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2015). The Court reasoned that sufficient ambiguity regarding the statutory definition of "whistleblower" was created by the fact that Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision cross-referenced whistleblowers who reported pursuant to SOX and other laws. 16 The Second Circuit was particularly concerned that certain categories of whistleblowers, such as auditors and attorneys, cannot report wrongdoing to the SEC until after they have reported the wrongdoing to their employers. Consequently, a narrow interpretation would leave such individuals with almost no protections under Dodd-Frank because any retaliation would almost always precede SEC reporting. 17 Unable to find any evidence of congressional intent in enacting the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provision, the Second Circuit concluded that the SEC's interpretation was entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and furthered the apparent purpose of Dodd-Frank to enhance incentives and protections for whistleblowers. 18

The Ninth Circuit applied similar reasoning in affirming the lower court's ruling that Mr. Somers could pursue Section 21F claims against his former employer. 19 Like the Second Circuit, the Court was troubled by the possibility of extinguishing Dodd-Frank's protections for auditors and other whistleblowers who are required to first report internally. 20The Ninth Circuit also emphasized the historical backdrop of SOX and Dodd-Frank legislation, recognizing that whistleblower protection was a key safeguard against abuses of the securities laws. 21 In addition, the Court highlighted the SEC's amicus brief arguments, which responded to the Fifth Circuit's concern that the SOX enforcement scheme might be rendered moot. 22 The SEC argued that SOX might be more attractive to certain whistleblowers because: (i) the administrative review requirement also means that the Department of Labor would take responsibility for asserting the claim on the whistleblower's behalf, which may be less costly and stressful; 23 and (ii) SOX allows compensation for special damages, which may be preferable to whistleblowers who suffered greater emotional than financial injuries. 24

Potential Implications

The Supreme Court's decision will likely resolve the question of whether whistleblowers must report potential misconduct to the SEC to qualify for Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation protections, and it may revisit the Chevron doctrine in doing so. The decision may have significant implications for businesses, as well as for auditors, attorneys, and certain other categories of whistleblowers who are subject to mandatory internal reporting requirements under SOX.

The Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief in support of Digital Realty's position. It voiced the business community's concern that a broad reading of the statute would lead to a proliferation of Dodd-Frank whistleblower litigation and render SOX, which limits claimants and fosters early resolution, obsolete. 25 The Chamber of Commerce also responded to the Second and Ninth Circuits' concern that auditors and attorneys may lack a remedy under Dodd-Frank because retaliation would likely occur before they have the opportunity to report to the SEC. According to the Chamber of Commerce, such a concern is unsupported by empirical evidence, which indicates that there is often an appreciable lag in time between the initial report and the alleged retaliation, which would give whistleblowers adequate time to report to the SEC. 26

The SEC filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Somers' position, arguing that a broad interpretation of the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provision is consistent with Congress' intent to strengthen the protections under SOX for internal whistleblowers, and in turn, promote corporate compliance. 27 The SEC argued that one potential benefit for employers under a broad interpretation of Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision is that employees would be encouraged to report potential misconduct internally first, which would enable employers to limit meritless claims and to self-correct without the need for intrusive external investigations. 28

A decision is expected by June 2018.


1 The Supreme Court held in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) that the interpretation of an administrative agency charged with enforcing a statute is entitled to deference in the face of statutory ambiguity, unless such interpretation is unreasonable.

2 See Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc., 850 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017).

3 Compare 15 U.S.C. § 78u–6(h)(1)(B), with 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1).

4 Compare 15 U.S.C. § 78u–6(h)(1)(C) (two times the amount of back pay), with 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2) (only back pay).

5 Compare 15 U.S.C. § 78u–6(h)(1)(B)(iii) (six years after the violation occurs or three years after the facts material to the right of action are known or should have been known, but no more than 10 years after the violation occurs), with 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(D) (180 days after the violation occurs or the employee becomes aware of the violation).

6 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1).

7 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(6).

8 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii) (emphasis added).

9 15 U.S.C. § 7245(1); 15 U.S.C. § 78j-1(b).

10 15 U.S.C. § 78j-1(b)(3).

11 17 C.F.R. § 205.3 (b).

12 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-2.;17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-2(b)(ii).

13 Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protections, Release No. 34–64545, 76 Fed. Reg. 34300–01, at *34304 (June 13, 2011) (emphasis added).

14 Asadi, 720 F.3dat625-27.

15 Id. at 628-629.

16 Berman, 801 F.3d at 155.

17 Id. at 151-52.

18 Id. at 155.

19 See Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc., 850 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017).

20 Id. at 1049-50.

21 Id. at 1048.

22 Id. at 1050.

23 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b).

24 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2)(C).

25 Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 18-21, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers (No. 16-1276).

26 Id. at 14.

27 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent at 30-31, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers (No. 16-1276).

28 Id. at 29-30.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions