A former UBS bond strategist who persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court docket to make it simpler for company whistleblowers to win retaliation lawsuits suffered a setback on Monday, as a jury verdict awarding him again pay and different damages was thrown out.
In a 2-1 determination, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals in Manhattan stated faulty jury directions at Trevor Murray’s 2020 trial made it too simple to conclude that his whistleblowing contributed to the Swiss financial institution’s determination to fireside him.
A contributing issue “should truly trigger or assist trigger the termination determination – it’s not sufficient merely to affect the termination, or usually to be the kind of factor that tends to trigger termination,” Circuit Choose Michael Park wrote.
The choice means UBS needn’t pay Murray the $903,300 jury verdict, plus $1.77 million for authorized payments.
U.S. District Choose Katherine Polk Failla in Manhattan had instructed jurors that whistleblowing might be a contributing think about Murray’s termination if it “tended to have an effect on in any means” UBS’s determination to fireside him.
Park stated this let jurors maintain UBS liable with out proof that Murray’s whistleblowing “truly did” result in his firing. The appeals courtroom returned the case to Failla.
Murray’s legal professionals didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark. UBS declined to remark.
Monday’s determination adopted a unanimous Supreme Court docket ruling final February that restored the jury verdict, which the 2nd Circuit had beforehand thrown out.
Associated: Supreme Court in UBS Case Makes it Easier for Whistleblowers to Win Suits
That ruling stated monetary trade whistleblowers needn’t show their employers fired them with “retaliatory intent,” however solely that they had been handled otherwise for whistleblowing.
Murray stated UBS fired him in February 2012 after he complained about strain to difficulty bullish analysis on business mortgage-backed securities to assist the financial institution’s buying and selling operations.
He stated UBS’s conduct violated the Sarbanes-Oxley company governance regulation.
UBS stated it fired Murray as a part of a broader cost-cutting that included hundreds of job losses, following a $2 billion loss by a rogue dealer.
Circuit Choose Myrna Perez dissented from Monday’s determination, saying cheap jurors would have understood Failla’s “completely sufficient” directions.
The case is Murray v UBS Securities LLC et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals, No. 20-4202.
A very powerful insurance coverage information,in your inbox each enterprise day.
Get the insurance coverage trade’s trusted publication
