Rosenblum v. Thomson Reuters (Markets) LLC
984 F. Supp. 2d 141
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Rosenblum, a former Thomson Redistribution Specialist, sues Thomson for retaliation under the DFA’s whistleblower protections after reporting alleged insider-information release and contacting the FBI.
- Thomson released data from the University of Michigan Product in a tiered schedule, with some subscribers receiving results earlier than others (including allegations of 9:06 a.m. access).
- Rosenblum alerted Thomson’s leadership and the FBI about potential Regulation FD violations; Thomson and supervisors cautioned him and suggested focusing on sales rather than investigations.
- Rosenblum was terminated on August 3, 2012, weeks after his whistleblowing and FBI notification; he contends the reasons were pretextual and retaliatory, not performance-based.
- Rosenblum filed suit April 4, 2013 and amended in August 2013, seeking damages for unlawful termination, including front pay and nonpecuniary harms.
- The court denies Thomson’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, interpreting the DFA’s whistleblower protections and considering SEC and SOX theories under the retaliation provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DFA retaliation requires SEC reporting to qualify | Rosenblum—no SEC report needed under 21F(h)(1) | Thomson—Asadi requires SEC report to qualify | Ambiguous; SEC rule reasonable; no SEC report required |
| Whether SOX-based disclosures support DFA retaliation claim | Rosenblum’s FBI/internal disclosures plausibly protect under SOX | SOX protections do not automatically align with DFA retaliation scope | Plausible SOX-based protection; claim survives on this basis |
| Whether punitive damages are available under DFA retaliation | Intends punitive damages where appropriate | DFA does not provide punitive damages | Punitive damages dismissed; limited remedies apply under DFA |
Key Cases Cited
- Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013) (limits whistleblower protection to SEC-reporting)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (establishes two-step deference to agency interpretation)
- Ellington v. Giacoumakis, 977 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D. Mass. 2013) (court rejected some narrow readings of Asadi; discussed SEC interpretation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausibility requirement)