On October 7th, a federal district judge granted summary judgment against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in its lawsuit against CVS. The EEOC had challenged the nation’s largest integrated provider of prescriptions and health-related services for its employee separation agreement. The EEOC’s Chicago office had filed the suit in February, alleging the company’s separation agreement violated its employees’ Title VII rights to communicate with the EEOC and file discrimination charges. Read More
Mike Delikat, a partner in the New York office, serves as Chair of Orrick’s Global Employment Law Practice, which has employment law teams in the European Union, Asia as well as the United States. He also is the founder of the firm’s Whistleblower Task Force. He previously served as the Managing Director of Orrick’s Litigation Division.
Under Mr. Delikat’s leadership, Orrick’s Employment Law & Litigation group was recently named Labor & Employment Department of the Year in California by The Recorder, the premier source for legal news, in recognition of their significant wins on behalf of leading multinational companies on today’s most complex and challenging employment law matters. The practice group has also been chosen as one of the top national employment law practices by Law 360.
He represents a broad range of major corporations in all facets of labor and employment law. Mr. Delikat has an active trial, arbitration and appellate practice and handles a number of high-visibility class action and impact cases. Mr. Delikat has extensive experience with litigation arising from trade secret misappropriation and the enforcement of post-employment restrictions, EEOC systemic investigations and litigations, wage-and-hour collective actions and other class actions based on gender and race, with particular expertise representing companies in the financial services industry.
He currently has an active practice representing a number of major corporations in the defense of Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other whistleblower claims and is the coauthor of the only extensive treatise published on whistleblowing and internal investigations, Corporate Whistleblowing in the Sarbanes-Oxley/Dodd-Frank Era. He is regularly retained by boards of directors and audit committees to conduct high exposure internal investigations of corporate wrongdoing.
- AllianceBernstein. Mr. Delikat has represented this client on multiple matters in court and in arbitration, including a successful defense of an ERISA class action.
- Facebook. Mr. Delikat created a single contact point solution for all of this client’s employment law needs outside the United States, which now is managed through Orrick’s unique Global HR Solutions platform.
- PG&E Corporation. Mr. Delikat obtained a complete defense verdict in a jury trial brought in the Maryland state court seeking to hold PG&E liable for multimillion dollar bonuses claimed by energy traders.
- Carrols Corporation. Mr. Delikat successfully represented Carrols Corporation, the largest holder of Burger King franchises, in the largest pattern and practice systemic class action for sexual harassment ever brought by the EEOC in EEOC v. Carrols.
- Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. This client regularly looks to Mr. Delikat for representation in filing amicus briefs on issues of paramount importance to SIFMA and its members.
- Microsoft. Mr. Delikat regularly advises this client on matters involving the enforcement of post-employment restrictions and restrictive covenants.
- Citigroup. Mr. Delikat regularly represents this client on a variety of employment disputes.
- AIG Corporation. The Board of Directors of this company retained Mr. Delikat to conduct a high-profile internal investigation of one of its senior executives.
- Wyeth. Mr. Delikat successfully defended Wyeth in a two-week jury trial in federal court alleging race discrimination. He also represented this client on several Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower matters, including the successful defense of Livingston v. Wyeth, which was the first U.S. Court of Appeals decision on what constitutes protected activity under the whistleblower provisions of SOX.
- Gannett/USA Today. Mr. Delikat has represented this client on a variety of post-employment restriction and trade secret litigation.
- Oracle. Mr. Delikat represented Oracle in multiple litigations, including a preliminary injunction trial involving efforts by a competitor to enforce its noncompete agreements.
- Roche. Mr. Delikat successfully represented Roche in several wage-and-hour collective actions which challenged the classification of pharmaceutical representatives as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- Moody’s Investors Service. Mr. Delikat defended Moody’s in a 400-plaintiff Title VII class action in the Southern District of New York alleging race and national origin discrimination in promotion.
- Major Law Firm Representation. Mr. Delikat represents a number of major law firms on a variety of matters relating to their partners, associates and staff. He obtained a seminal decision in Weir v. Holland & Knight, which held that law firm partners are not covered by statutory discrimination protections.
- Time Warner, Inc. Mr. Delikat obtained summary judgment on behalf of this client in a discrimination case brought by an in-house lawyer, affirmed on appeal by the Second Circuit, establishing the standard for retaliation claims in that Circuit.
Mr. Delikat is published and quoted frequently on a variety of employment law issues in major academic and business publications and is a frequent speaker at national and international programs.
On September 22, 2014, the SEC announced its largest whistleblower award to date under its Dodd-Frank whistleblower bounty program. It awarded $30-$35 million to an anonymous whistleblower who the Commission said provided original information about an ongoing fraud that would otherwise have been difficult to detect. That information led to the successful enforcement of an SEC action as well as unspecified related actions. The SEC stated that the whistleblower’s award would have been even higher if he/she had not unreasonably delayed in coming forward, though the agency did not apply the unreasonable delay consideration as severely as it otherwise would have because some of the delay occurred before the whistleblower program’s inception.
OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee (“WPAC”) met on September 3-4, 2014. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor, OSHA, addressed the Committee and discussed recent results and initiatives of OSHA’s whistleblower program. Some highlights:
Last week, in Liu v. Siemens, AG, the Second Circuit held that the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower retaliation provision (15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(1)) does not apply extraterritorially, in the first Second Circuit decision to address the international scope of Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower protections against retaliation. Liu, a citizen and resident of Taiwan, was a compliance officer for Siemens China Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Siemens AG. Siemens AG is a German corporation with shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Liu claimed Siemens wrongfully terminated his employment in retaliation for reporting that Siemens China Ltd. employees were making improper payments to Chinese officials in North Korea and China in connection with the sale of medical equipment in those countries, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).
Last week, the Second Circuit upheld a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s Sarbanes-Oxley (“SOX”) whistleblower claim – but not before rejecting the “definitively and specifically” standard on which the district court’s decision relied. Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., No. 13-235-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2014).
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced the latest whistleblower bounty awarded under the Dodd-Frank Act, which authorizes rewards for original information about violations of securities laws. Whistleblowers can receive 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected in an SEC enforcement action where the monetary sanctions imposed exceed $1 million.
On June 16, 2014, the SEC issued its first-ever charge of whistleblower retaliation under section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, charging a hedge fund advisor and its owner with “engaging in prohibited principal transactions and then retaliating against the employee who reported the trading activity to the SEC.” Read More
On Monday, May 19, 2014, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued its first award to a whistleblower under its Dodd-Frank bounty program.
The Commission will pay $240,000 to an unidentified whistleblower who “voluntarily provided original information that caused the Commission to launch an investigation that led to an enforcement action” in which the judgment and sanctions exceeded $1 million. The heavily redacted award determination on the CFTC’s website does not reveal the name of the implicated company, the nature of the wrongdoing involved, the percentage of bounty the whistleblower received (which is required to be between 10 and 30 percent pursuant to the statute), or the factors considered in determining the percentage of the bounty.
Prior to this first grant of an award to a whistleblower under the CFTC’s Dodd-Frank bounty program, there were 25 denials of award claims. The reasons for the denials primarily fell into one or more of several categories:
- the individuals provided information before the passage of Dodd-Frank;
- they did not file a form TCR as required by the regulations;
- they did not provide information “voluntarily” but rather in response to a Commission request; and/or
- the information did not cause the Commission to open or expand an investigation or significantly contribute to a success of a Commission matter.
Time will tell whether this first award will have any effect on the number of whistleblowers who report to the CFTC or the quality of information the Commission receives.
As reported by us in recent blog articles (Do as I Say, Not as I Do: Differences in Duties Means No Commonality, No Class Certification for Unpaid Interns and The High Cost of Hiring Unpaid Interns), employment issues surrounding unpaid interns are on the rise. While the bulk of the debate has centered on wage-and-hour issues, some have argued that interns should be afforded the same protections from workplace discrimination and harassment as employees. New York City has now adopted that view. Read More
Yesterday, in Lawson v. FMR LLC, a divided U.S. Supreme Court decided its first case addressing the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The question before the Court: do those protections extend only to the employees of public companies, or do they also reach the employees of contractors and subcontractors of public companies? You can see our prior posts on the case here (June 19, 2012), here (October 8, 2013), here (January 7, 2014), and here (January 28, 2014). Read More