Khaled Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620

Asadi, the Iraq Country Executive for GE Energy, reported a possible FCPA violation to GE Energy officials in 2010.
Following his internal reports, Asadi received a negative performance review and was pressured to step down.
Approximately one year after his internal reports, GE Energy terminated him.
Asadi sued GE Energy under Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower-protection provision, alleging retaliation for protected activity.
The district court dismissed, holding that the whistleblower-protection provision does not extraterritorially protect Asadi and that he was not a whistleblower under § 78u-6(a)(6).
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Dodd-Frank’s private right of action requires reporting information to the SEC to qualify as a whistleblower.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Dodd-Frank protect non‑SEC reporters from retaliation?	Asadi argues § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii) extends protection for authorized disclosures even without SEC reporting.	The statute defines whistleblower as someone who provides information to the SEC; protection is limited to those who report to the SEC.	No; protection requires reporting to the SEC.

Khalid v. Holder, 655 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2011) (explicitly addresses the scope of whistleblower status under Dodd-Frank)
BedRoc Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (S. Ct. 2004) (statutory interpretation: aim to harmonize text and structure)
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (S. Ct. 2009) (plain and unambiguous statutory text governs interpretive starting point)
Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (S. Ct. 2001) (anti-superfluity canons in statutory interpretation)
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (S. Ct. 1997) (textual approach to plain meaning in statutory construction)
TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (S. Ct. 2001) (surplusage and interpretation in statutory context)
Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 554 U.S. 33 (S. Ct. 2008) (statutory headings as aids, not controls)