SOX Issues (Part III)

Post-Parexel ARB Decisions – An Avalanche Of Favorable Decisions For SOX Complainants

Parexel was decided on May 25, 2011. Since May 25, 2011, the ARB has continued to follow Parexel in numerous cases, to the great benefit of SOX claimants. See, e.g., Zinn v. American Commercial Lines, Inc., No. 10-029, 2012 WL 1102507, at *4-5 (ARB Mar. 28, 2012) (relying on Parexel to conclude that the ALJ “legally erred in analyzing the evidence of Zinn’s objective reasonableness of a violation of pertinent law, thus warranting a remand . . . [partially because] an allegation of shareholder fraud is not a necessary component of protected activity under Section 806 of the SOX”); Prioleau v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., No. 10-060, 2011 WL 6122422, at *5-7 (ARB Nov. 9, 2011) (reversing ALJ’s decision against complainant based largely on Parexel); Menendez v. Halliburton, Inc., No. 09-002, 2011 WL 4439090, at *8 (ARB Sept. 13, 2011) (relying on Parexel in affirming ALJ’s conclusion that the complainant engaged in SOX-protected activity); Funke v. Federal Express Corp., No. 09-004, 2011 WL 3307574, at *7 (ARB July 8, 2011) (reversing ALJ’s decision against complainant based in part on Parexel); Inman v. Fannie Mae, No. 08-060, 2011 WL 2614298, at *6-7 (ARB June 28, 2011) (reversing ALJ’s decision against complainant based on Parexel and stating that “an allegation of fraud is not a necessary component of protected activity under Section 806.”); Mara v. Sempra Energy Trading, LLC, No. 10-151, 2011 WL 2614345, at *6-7 (June 28, 2011) (reversing ALJ’s decision against complainant based on Parexel).

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Houston Employment Law, Houston Retaliation Law, SOX and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.