Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Administrative Review Board, 717 F.3d 1121

Brown, Lockheed's Communications Director, reported concerns about Owen's alleged use of company funds and improper activities in 2006.
Brown informed Moncallo and Pleasant; an anonymous ethics complaint led to an internal investigation of Owen (May–Aug 2006).
After the investigation, Owen was confronted; Brown's performance ratings declined and she faced escalating perceived hostility and retaliation.
A reorganization in 2007 relocated Brown, reduced her role, and she ultimately lost her office, title, and responsibilities, with ongoing uncertainty about employment.
Brown filed an OSHA complaint alleging SOX Section 806 retaliation; ALJ found protected activity, adverse actions, and causation; back pay and damages were awarded.
ARB affirmed, and the court reviews under APA deferential standards; the matter was remanded for certain monetary-related determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reporting mail/wire fraud falls within §1514A(a)(1) protection	Brown reported mail/wire fraud; such reports should be protected.	Only shareholder-fraud related reports are protected for broader categories.	Statute unambiguously protects reports of mail/wire fraud independent of shareholder fraud.
Whether Brown's belief of fraud was reasonable	Brown reasonably believed Owen diverted funds and engaged in fraud.	Belief lacks specific intent; not reasonable as a matter of law.	Brown's belief was reasonable; both subjective and objective components satisfied.
Constructive discharge as the adverse employment action	Brown faced intolerable working conditions constituting constructive discharge.	Other actions less severe; insufficient to show intolerable conditions.	Evidence supports a constructive-discharge finding under the totality of circumstances.
Contributing factor standard under §1514A(b)(2)(C)	Protected activity contributed to Brown's discharge; proximity and evidence show causation.	Temporal gap undermines causal link; reliance on alternative explanations.	Brown established a contributing factor; temporal proximity plus biased evaluators support causation.
Remedial relief and remedies	Relief including back pay, medical expenses, and reinstatement is appropriate.	Award quantification and reinstatement details may require further determination.	Remand to agency for precise quantification and reinstatement review; damages supported.

Hall v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 476 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 2007) (APA standard for review of ARB decisions; de novo legal review; substantial evidence for facts)
Trimmer v. Dep’t of Labor, 174 F.3d 1098 (10th Cir. 1999) (deference to Board credibility and factual determinations)
San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2011) (presumption of regularity; burden on challenger)
Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (Supreme Court 2004) (statutory interpretation; avoid superfluities; context matters)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1902 (2011) (subordinate bias (cat’s paw) theory in causation claims)
Garrett v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 305 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2002) (evidence of discriminatory action and retaliation factors)
Meiners v. University of Kansas, 359 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2004) (causation in retaliation cases; temporal proximity considerations)
Exum v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 389 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2004) (alternatives to quitting; not dispositive on constructive discharge)
Pacheco v. Whiting Farms, Inc., 365 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2004) (causation and motivating factors in retaliation claims)