IRAC Case Brief - Scenario 1

Running head: IRAC CASE BRIEF - SCENARIO 11

Jeffrey White

University of Phoenix

IRAC CASE BRIEF - SCENARIO 11

IRAC Case Brief - Scenario 1

The following case brief between The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) on behalf of the former CFO of Clean Diesel Technologies Inc. and Clean Diesel Technologies Inc. leverages the IRAC method to align core elements of the rule with associated facts to validate or disprove court rulings:

Case- The former CFO (complainant) of Clean Diesel apprised the board of directors of Clean Diesel of a conflict of interest that would violate SEC regulations and internal corporate ethical code between the chair of the board of directors and a proposed merger with an unnamed company. The complainant was terminated because of his making known his reasonable belief pertaining to the conflict of interest. The complainant filed a whistleblower complaint with OSHA in response to his termination(Fitzgerald & Bowser).
Issue-Did the details of this case qualify the complainant for protection under the OSHA whistleblower protection program, and was reasonable belief on behalf of the complainant enough to justify OSHA legal support.
Rule-Section 806 of the SOX, 18 U.S.C. 1514A protects whistleblowers employed by publicly traded companies from discrimination. The key provision of this specific case and subsequent law are as follows:
Section 1107 of H.R. 3763, codified as 18 U.S.C. 1513(e), is an amendment to the obstruction of justice statute enacted by Department of Labor. The amendment clarifies prohibition details relevant to employee whistleblower retaliation as follows:
“Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both” (Kohn).
Analysis-OSHA engaged the complaint pursuant to whistleblower provisions following investigation, and legal protocol set forth in said provisions. The OSHA investigation validated that the complainant provided reasonable information to the board of directors otherwise qualified under the protection statutes of SOX. The information was found to be relevant in terms of conflict of interest between the board of director’s chair and the unnamed company that was to be merged with Clean Diesel. OSHA also found during the investigation, and subsequently validated that relevant information pertaining to the merger was withheld from shareholders, and the SEC in direct conflict with SOX. Lastly, OSHA determined the termination of the complainant was retaliatory and in direct violation of the whistleblowers provisions detailed in SOX.
Conclusion–The source used for this IRAC case brief did not detail OSHA investigation findings but the court ruling signifies the details uncovered by OSHA validated the initial complaint that Clean Diesel did retaliate against the complainant for his lawful communication with the board of directors. The significant compensatory damagesawarded to the complainant and fines levied against Clean Diesel further indicate the breach severity of SOX regulations specific to the whistleblower protection provisions.

References

Fitzgerald, T., & Bowser, A. (2013, September 30). OSHA Regional News Release. Retrieved from

Kohn, S. M. (2013, November 14). Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Legal Protection for Corporate Whistleblowers. Retrieved from