Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers
138 S.Ct. 767 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The anti-retaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Act protects only those individuals who meet the statutory definition of a 'whistleblower,' which requires providing information about a securities law violation to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). An individual who reports alleged violations only internally to their employer does not qualify for Dodd-Frank's protections.
Facts:
- Paul Somers was employed as a Vice President by Digital Realty Trust, Inc. from 2010 to 2014.
- During his employment, Somers reported to senior management within Digital Realty that he suspected the company was committing securities-law violations.
- Somers did not report these suspected violations to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) before his employment was terminated.
- Digital Realty terminated Somers's employment shortly after he made his internal reports of suspected misconduct.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Somers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging whistleblower retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Act against Digital Realty Trust, Inc.
- Digital Realty filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Somers was not a 'whistleblower' under the Act because he had not reported to the SEC.
- The District Court, deferring to an SEC rule, denied the motion to dismiss.
- Digital Realty took an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where Digital Realty was the appellant and Somers was the appellee.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the anti-retaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. The anti-retaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Act does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC. The statute provides a clear and explicit definition of a 'whistleblower' as an individual who provides information 'to the Commission.' The Act further directs that this definition applies throughout the entire statutory section, which includes the anti-retaliation provision. The Court must adhere to this unambiguous text. This interpretation is reinforced by the core purpose of Dodd-Frank's whistleblower program, which was designed to incentivize reporting directly to the SEC to aid its enforcement efforts. The Court rejected arguments that this reading would render other clauses absurd, noting that it still provides meaningful protection to 'dual reporters'—those who report both internally and to the SEC. Because Congress spoke directly and clearly on the issue, the SEC's regulation expanding the definition for anti-retaliation purposes is not entitled to Chevron deference.
Concurring - Justice Sotomayor
Agrees with the majority's holding. Justice Sotomayor wrote separately to defend the use of legislative history, such as committee reports, as a valid and reliable source for courts to use in interpreting statutes. She argued that even when a statute's text is clear, legislative history can be useful to corroborate and fortify the court's understanding of congressional intent, and that ignoring it disrespects a coequal branch of government.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Agrees with the majority's judgment. Justice Thomas wrote separately to argue that the Court's decision should be based solely on the plain text of the statute. He criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history, like a Senate Report, to discern the statute's 'purpose,' asserting that courts are governed by the law Congress enacted, not by what a committee report suggests it intended. He expressed profound skepticism about the reliability and authority of legislative history in statutory interpretation.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split by significantly narrowing the scope of Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation protections, establishing a bright-line rule that requires reporting to the SEC. It clarifies that employees who only report suspected securities violations internally are limited to the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which has a much shorter statute of limitations and requires administrative exhaustion. The ruling emphasizes a textualist approach, prioritizing the statute's explicit definition over a federal agency's broader interpretation. This holding limits the SEC's authority to expand statutory protections through rulemaking when the statutory language is unambiguous, reinforcing the judiciary's role in statutory interpretation.
