Steven Calderone v. Sonic Houston JLR, L.P., 879 F.3d 577

Calderone was a salesman at Sonic Houston JLR, an automobile dealership, who reported alleged racial discrimination in credit/financing decisions and was terminated.
He sued under the CFPA’s anti-retaliation provision, 12 U.S.C. § 5567(a), claiming he was fired for reporting violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).
The ECOA is an "enumerated consumer law" within the CFPB’s statutory catalog, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(12), but that catalog is prefaced by an exception referencing the automobile-dealer exclusion in 12 U.S.C. § 5519.
Section 5519(a) generally bars the CFPB from exercising authority over motor vehicle dealers predominantly engaged in vehicle sales/servicing; § 5519(b)–(c) preserves other federal agencies’ authority and excludes dealers who directly extend financing.
The district court granted summary judgment for Sonic, concluding the dealer exclusion meant the ECOA, as applied to Sonic, was not a law "subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau," so § 5567(a) did not protect Calderone.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the statutory text and structure make the ECOA inapplicable to dealers for CFPB jurisdictional purposes and a plaintiff’s reasonable belief cannot expand that jurisdictional reach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sonic is covered by the CFPA anti-retaliation provision given the automobile-dealer exclusion	Calderone: even if CFPB lacks authority over dealers, § 5567(a) protects employees of "covered persons" or "service providers" who report violations of laws subject to CFPB jurisdiction; enforcement by DOL, not CFPB, means the dealer exclusion shouldn’t bar a § 5567 claim	Sonic: § 5519(a) removes automobile dealers from the Bureau’s jurisdiction; § 5481(12) incorporates that exclusion so ECOA as applied to dealers is not a law "subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau," so § 5567(a) cannot apply	Held for Sonic: statutory text and structure show the enumerated laws are subject to the dealer exclusion; ECOA as applied to dealers is not within CFPB jurisdiction, so § 5567(a) does not apply to Sonic
Whether Calderone’s reasonable belief that Sonic violated the ECOA can overcome the statutory jurisdictional limit	Calderone: under precedent, a reasonable belief that a statute was violated can support anti-retaliation protection even if mistaken as to the underlying violation	Sonic: a plaintiff’s belief cannot expand the statutory scope of the CFPA or the dealer exclusion in § 5519	Held for Sonic: reasonable-belief protection does not alter or expand which statutes are "subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau;" a reasonable but mistaken belief cannot extend CFPA jurisdiction to dealers outside Congress’s grant

Wallace v. Tesoro Corp., 796 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2015) (reasonable‑belief principle in whistleblower/anti‑retaliation context)
Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) (canons of statutory interpretation; permitting reading statutes in context)
Treadway v. Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc., 362 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2004) (discussing when dealers may qualify as "creditors" under ECOA)