By: Derek Hawkins//February 28, 2018//
United States Supreme Court
Case Name: Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers
Case No.: 16-1276
Focus: Dodd-Frank – Statutory Interpretation
Respondent Paul Somers alleges that petitioner Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (Digital Realty) terminated his employment shortly after he reported to senior management suspected securities-law violations by the company. Somers filed suit, alleging, inter alia, a claim of whistleblower retaliation under Dodd-Frank. Digital Realty moved to dismiss that claim on the ground that Somers was not a whistle- blower under §78u–6(h) because he did not alert the SEC prior to his termination. The District Court denied the motion, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals concluded that §78u–6(h) does not necessitate recourse to the SEC prior to gaining “whistleblower” status, and it accorded deference to the SEC’s regulation un- der Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837.
The question presented: Does the anti-retaliation provision of Dodd-Frank extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC and therefore falls outside the Act’s definition of “whistleblower”? Pet. for Cert. (I). We answer that question “No”: To sue under Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision, a per- son must first “provid[e] . . . information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission.” §78u–6(a)(6).
Reversed and Remanded
Dissenting:
Concurring: SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.