Halliburton, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, 771 F.3d 254

Menendez, Halliburton Director of Technical Accounting Research, raised concerns about revenue-recognition practices in 2005.
Company study in 2005 concluded practices were proper; Menendez met with his supervisor who urged him to be more collaborative.
Menendez filed a confidential SEC complaint on November 5, 2005, prompting SEC contact and document-retention orders.
Cornelison inferred Menendez was the SEC source and directed employees to preserve documents; McCollum forwarded the notice to colleagues.
Menendez faced workplace ostracism after identity disclosure; he took leave and resigned in October 2006.
May 8, 2006, Menendez filed SOX § 806 retaliation complaint; ARB remanded after determining disclosure could be adverse and was a contributing factor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was disclosure of the whistleblower identity an adverse action?	Menendez	Halliburton	Yes; disclosure was a materially adverse action.
Did protected conduct contribute to the adverse action?	Menendez	Halliburton	Yes; protected activity was a contributing factor.
Are noneconomic damages available under SOX § 1514A?	Menendez	Halliburton	Yes; noneconomic compensatory damages are available.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (material adversity standard for retaliation)
Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008) (contributing-factor standard for SOX retaliation)
Marano v. Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (contributing-factor test for protected activity)
Neal v. Honeywell, Inc., 191 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 1999) (False Claims Act analogy to noneconomic damages)
Brandon v. Anesthesia & Pain Mgmt. Associates, Ltd., 277 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2002) (noneconomic damages under FA Act/analogous reasoning)
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Admin. Review Bd., 717 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2013) (SOX remedies context for noneconomic damages)