Tides v. the Boeing Co.
644 F.3d 809
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Tides and Neumann were IT SOX auditors at Boeing, within the Corporate Audit organization, and raised concerns about internal controls and contractors involved in audits.
- They criticized Boeing's use of PriceWaterhouseCoopers contractors and management pressure to rate internal controls as effective.
- They reported concerns to management and HR, and one was contacted by a Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter regarding Boeing's SOX compliance.
- Boeing policy PRO-3439 restricted disclosures to the media and required review by the communications department.
- After the media contacts, Boeing investigated, suspended the plaintiffs, and terminated them for policy violations, leading to SOX whistleblower complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosures to the media are protected under §1514A(a)(1) | Tides/Neumann claim media reports may ultimately reach regulators or Congress. | Statute protects only disclosures to specified entities, excluding the media. | Media disclosures are not protected under §1514A(a)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Asdale v. Int'l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.2009) (prima facie elements and shift of burden in §1514A claims)
- McDonald v. Sun Oil Co., 548 F.3d 774 (9th Cir.2008) (statutory interpretation begins with plain text)
- Beeman v. TDI Managed Care Servs., Inc., 449 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.2006) (statutory interpretation and burden shifting in §1514A)
- United States v. Hall, 617 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir.2010) (plain meaning guiding statutory interpretation)
- White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.2004) (Whistleblower Protection Act contrasted for scope)
- Quarty v. United States, 170 F.3d 961 (9th Cir.1999) (avoid reading statute words out of statute)
- Day v. Staples, 555 F.3d 42 (1st Cir.2009) (legislative history supporting §1514A scope)