Supreme Court rules lack of animus irrelevant to discrimination violation

When I was in active practice, I would hear this plaintive protest from managers accused of unlawful discrimination: “I don’t hate [the employee] because they are [fill in blank protected classification]. So how can I be guilty of unlawful discrimination?!?” Well, the law doesn’t care about one’s motive—only about whether it appears that the law was violated. A recent case from the U.S. Supreme Court stresses this point.

Whistleblower under Sarbanes-Oxley Act

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act prohibits retaliation against an employee for reporting internal financial misdeeds of a publicly traded company. The question recently before the Court was whether the phrase in the law—“discriminate against an employee”—requires a whistleblower to prove the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.” The Court said, “No.”

While the case dealt specifically with Sarbanes-Oxley, its holding applies to all employment discrimination laws.

Discriminatory action, not malevolent motive, is what counts

A few facts: Trevor Murray was employed as a research strategist at UBS Securities. He claimed he was pressured to produce reports that were more supportive of the business strategies of some groups within UBS. He reported this pressure up the chain of command, who allegedly told him to play ball and do what was best for UBS.