Yang v. Navigators Group, Inc.
674 F. App'x 13
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Jennifer Yang, former employee of Navigators Group, was terminated about two weeks after warning company counsel that the proxy statement might misrepresent the adequacy of risk models and frequency of risk‑management meetings.
- Yang sued for retaliatory discharge under Section 806 of Sarbanes‑Oxley (SOX) and Section 922 of Dodd‑Frank, alleging protected whistleblowing and termination in retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Navigators, excluding Yang’s own deposition and declaration testimony as insufficient and relying on a claimed intervening, legitimate basis for termination (an allegedly incoherent presentation by Yang).
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether Yang had adduced a prima facie SOX claim (protected activity; employer knowledge; adverse action; protected activity was a contributing factor).
- The Second Circuit held that Yang’s testimony was admissible and, viewed in her favor, created a genuine dispute as to protected activity and causation given the close temporal proximity and inconsistent employer explanations for termination.
- The Court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yang engaged in protected activity under SOX | Yang communicated concerns about risk models and proxy misstatements; her deposition/declaration are admissible evidence | Navigators argued Yang’s testimony was self‑serving and insufficient, so no protected activity | Court: Yang’s testimony is admissible; viewed favorably it creates a genuine dispute of protected activity |
| Whether defendant knew of the protected activity | Yang contends company counsel and senior management were informed shortly before termination | Navigators contends any alleged communications were not protected or not known to decisionmakers | Court: Assumed awareness for purposes of prima facie showing; factual disputes remain for trial |
| Whether adverse personnel action occurred and was proximate to protected activity | Yang: termination occurred ~2 weeks after her disclosure, supporting causation by temporal proximity | Navigators: an intervening legitimate basis (Yang’s purportedly incoherent presentation) breaks causal link | Court: Temporal proximity plus inconsistent employer explanations permit an inference; disputed facts about the presentation preclude summary judgment |
| Whether employer rebutted causation with clear and convincing evidence it would have terminated regardless | Yang: employer’s shifting reasons and lack of prior performance warnings undermine a clear‑and‑convincing showing | Navigators: offered generalized performance concerns and the alleged poor presentation as nonretaliatory reasons | Court: Material disputes remain; Navigators did not establish entitlement to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Fed. Express, 766 F.3d 189 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Danzer v. Norden Sys., Inc., 151 F.3d 50 (2d Cir.) (self‑serving testimony can defeat summary judgment)
- Walsh v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 828 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (treatment of self‑serving testimony at summary judgment)
- Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd., 710 F.3d 443 (2d Cir.) (elements of SOX retaliatory‑discharge claim and employer rebuttal standard)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir.) (short temporal proximity can support prima facie causation)
- Simpson v. City of New York, 793 F.3d 259 (2d Cir.) (on summary judgment courts credit nonmoving party and assess credibility issues for the factfinder)