Introduction
Paul Somers sought to be compensated after dismissal. The case had different elements from Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Acts. Somers was required to file complaints within six months.
The Reason for the Choice of the Case
The case enlightens people on business law issues. The case gives insights into proper decision-making. Through the case, various concepts of whistleblowing are learned.
Whistleblowing Element in Legal and Business Perspective
Whistleblowing involves reporting wrongdoing in a given firm. Conspiracies may lead to financial embezzlement. It comprises action taken on public interest matters and preventing health risks.
Somers and Solicitor General’s Submissions Concerning Dodd-Frank’s Act
Somers and the Solicitor General claimed that the Act did not cover the anti-retaliation issues. Supreme Court reading would invalidate the coverage of some clauses. The third clause of the Dodd-Frank did not specify who would report to the SEC and other agencies.
Further Submissions by the Respondent about Dodd-Frank’s Act
The Act had not elaborated on the protection of possible disclosure personnel. There was no clear substantiation of the connections between the two respects. Both Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Franks contradicted the whistleblowing elements.
Judge’s Verdict on the Case
The case’s statement was read by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg said that the two Acts had different factions. In the statement made, Somers was whistleblowing but not under the law.
What the Opinion of the Court Meant
The court decided that Somers was not supposed to be compensated in any way. He had failed to follow the Dodd-Franks requirements.
The Outcome of the Case to Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing was adversely affected by the verdict. The whistleblowers would be left unprotected. It would lead to more fraudulent deals in working places.
Whether I Agree with the Supreme Court’s Decision
I do not agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. Whistleblowing should be held, and people responsible be convicted accordingly. The decision would encourage dishonesty in business.
Conclusion
Environmental laws involve employer-employee issues. The case of Somers versus DRT is an example of employment law. Somers had been fired due to whistleblowing while working as the vice president of the company. In the case, he failed to file a complaint with SEC, hence he lost the case. The outcome of the case was a blow to whistleblowing. Such verdicts would encourage dishonesty in working places.
References
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers – National Whistle-blower Centre. National Whistle-blower Centre. (2018). Web.
Greenspan, J. (2018). U.S. Supreme Court: Reporting to the SEC is a prerequisite for Dodd-Frank’s “Whistleblower” anti-retaliation protection. Americanbar.org. Web.
Ventry, D. (2018). Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers: Bad news for employers, lawyers and internal compliance. Jurist.org. Web.
Ville, J. (2018). Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers. Mtsu.edu. Web.
Wilson, S. (2018). Four key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U.S.___ (2018). Web.