Villanueva v. United States Department of Labor, 743 F.3d 103

Plaintiff William Villanueva, a Colombian national and longtime general manager of Saybolt de Colombia Ltda., alleged he complained about a scheme shifting revenue to a Dutch affiliate (Core Laboratories Sales) and claiming improper VAT exemptions, which he believed underreported taxes in Colombia.
Core Laboratories N.V. (Core Labs) is a Netherlands company with securities traded in the U.S.; Saybolt Colombia is a Colombian subsidiary not separately publicly traded.
Villanueva raised concerns internally (copied Core Labs’ Houston accountant), refused to sign Colombian tax returns, was denied a raise, and then terminated in Colombia.
He filed a SOX §806 whistleblower complaint with OSHA asserting retaliation for reporting fraud allegedly directed from Core Labs’ Houston office; OSHA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; ALJ dismissed, finding §806 inapplicable extraterritorially; the ARB affirmed dismissal on narrower grounds.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo legal conclusions and for substantial evidence factual findings, and affirmed because Villanueva did not show he reasonably believed he was reporting violations of the specific U.S. laws enumerated in §806.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Villanueva engaged in "protected activity" under 18 U.S.C. §1514A by reporting violations of U.S. law	Villanueva argued his complaints concerned fraud orchestrated by Core Labs’ Houston officials using mail, email, and phones to effectuate the scheme	Core Labs/agency argued his reports were about violations of Colombian tax law, not any of the six categories of U.S. law §806 protects	Held: Villanueva did not demonstrate a reasonable belief that he reported violations of the enumerated U.S. statutes or SEC rules, so he did not engage in protected activity
Whether §806 must be applied extraterritorially to reach this conduct	Villanueva contended §806 applies because Core Labs is a U.S.-traded company and Houston officials were implicated	Defendants argued §806 does not reach foreign nationals employed abroad reporting foreign-law violations	Held: Court did not decide extraterritoriality because plaintiff failed the narrower threshold of protected activity under §806

Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008) (defines elements and scope of §806 whistleblower protection)
Williams v. Admin. Review Bd., 376 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard for substantial-evidence review of ARB factual findings)
Welch v. Chao, 536 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 2008) (employee communications must identify specific conduct believed illegal to notify employer)
Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) (statutory extraterritoriality is a merits question)