In April, a Los Angeles Superior Court held that Assembly Bill (AB) 979 which required publicly-held corporations headquartered in California to diversify by adding “underrepresented communities” to their board of directors, was unconstitutional. On May 13, 2022, a second
Corporate Governance & Internal Investigations Advisor
Latest from Corporate Governance & Internal Investigations Advisor - Page 2
ESG Taking Center Stage At The SEC – What Can Publicly Traded Employers Expect?
A phrase first coined in 2005, environmental, social, and corporate governance (“ESG”) is making headlines. ESG is a lens applied by investors to evaluate the extent to which corporations function with respect to a variety of pro-social goals. The term…
Goodbye to McDonnell Douglas Under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act?
On April 6, 2022, Minnesota’s Supreme Court in Lori Dowling Hanson v. State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources affirmed the lower courts’ summary dismissal of a Minnesota Whistleblower Act (“MWA”) claim brought by a former Department of Natural Resources…
Refreshing Whistleblower Processes for the Remote Workplace: Best Practices
At the onset of COVID in 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that over a three-month period, there were a deluge of tips, complaints and possible referrals to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). More recently, the SEC has…
California Superior Court Finds AB 979 is Unconstitutional
On September 30, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 979, which required publicly held corporations headquartered in California to diversify their boards of directors with directors from “underrepresented communities” by December 31, 2021. AB 979 followed similar legislation in …
Challenges to California’s Board Diversity Statutes
Building on board gender diversity requirements, California passed Assembly Bill (AB) 979 in 2020. This statute requires publicly held corporations headquartered in California to diversify their boards of directors with directors from “underrepresented communities,” specifically those individuals who self-identify as…
U.S. Supreme Declines to Resolve Circuit Split on False Claims Act Anti-Retaliation Provisions
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to settle a split among federal appeal courts on whether former employees are covered by whistleblower anti-retaliation protections contained in the False Claims Act (FCA). United States ex rel. David Felten v. William Beaumont…
Fifth Circuit Cases Underscore Need for Attention to Detail in Arbitration Agreements Covering Whistleblower Claims
In the last ten years alone, SCOTUS and Circuit Courts have shaped the way employers craft and use arbitration agreements with their workforce, and the trend shows no sign of slowing down. In the last few months, recent court decisions…
Blowing The Whistle May Not Act As A Shield: The Consequences of Misconduct
That an employee may have engaged in protected activity under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) does not render their employer unable to address the employee’s subsequent misconduct or other inappropriate behavior. Employers retain the ability to take adverse employment action for…
Diversity, Inclusion & Equity Training for Boards – Not Just a Compliance Exercise
“The most powerful leadership tool you have is your own personal example.” John Wooden
Boards play a pivotal role in establishing an organization that champions, highlights, and capitalizes on diversity, inclusion and equity. Boards must be mindful of how they…