Employment – Whistleblower – Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Listen to this article

Where a defendant employer has moved for summary judgment on a plaintiff’s claim of retaliation in violation of the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (18 U.S.C. §1514A), that motion should be allowed because the plaintiff did not do enough to give the defendant reason to suspect that he was engaging in protected activity.

“After his termination from Defendant Salesforce, Inc., Plaintiff Karl Wirth brought suit alleging one count of retaliation in violation of the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. …

“A jury could find that a reasonable person in Wirth’s position could have concluded, given the delays in achieving the ‘real-time’ capabilities to be announced at Dreamforce, that Salesforce nevertheless planned to announce ‘real-time’ [customer data platform (CDP)] at Dreamforce, and that doing so would defraud shareholders, who would make investing decisions in response to the announcement. …

“Here, the Court finds that Wirth did not do enough to give Salesforce reason to suspect that Wirth was engaging in protected activity. …

“… Every complaint that timing expectations may not be met is not protected whistleblower activity, and it simply cannot be enough to put employers on notice of possible whistleblowing, even including the other ‘attendant circumstances’ that Wirth identifies. … Though Wirth repeatedly raised concerns about the team’s ability to deliver on the planned Dreamforce announcement, and Wirth himself may have reasonably believed that such an announcement could defraud shareholders (or at least provided evidence that might support a jury so finding), … Wirth’s communications to Salesforce executives were insufficient to put Salesforce on notice of his protected activity. Therefore, the Court grants Salesforce’s motion for summary judgment.”

Wirth v. Salesforce, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-240-26) (15 pages) (Murphy, J.) (Civil Action No. 23-11718-BEM) (April 27, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.