Bussing v. COR Clearing, LLC, 20 F. Supp. 3d 719 (D. Neb. 2014): Preserving the Right to Tell Your Employers What They Do Not Want to Hear

Authors

Kelsey E. B. Knoer, University of Nebraska College of Law

Abstract

I. Introduction

II. Background ... A. The Great Recession ... B. The Failure of Sarbanes-Oxley ... 1. The Best of Intentions ... 2. How Sarbanes-Oxley Failed Whistle-Blowers ... C. Dodd-Frank and Financial Reform ... 1. Improving Sarbanes-Oxley ... 2. The Two Provisions ... a. The Bounty Program ... b. Protecting Whistle-Blowers from Retaliation ... D. The Interpretation of Dodd-Frank’s Whistle-Blower Provisions ... 1. The Asadi Approach ... 2. The Chevron Deference Approach ... 3. How Whistle-Blowers Have Faired ... a. The Statistics of Whistle-Blowing ... b. Missing the Mark: Whistle-Blowers Left Without Protection ... E. Bussing v. COR Clearing LLC ... 1. The Facts ... 2. The District of Nebraska Steps In

III. Analysis ... A. The District of Nebraska Correctly Interpreted the Dodd-Frank Whistle-Blower Protections ... 1. Separating the Anti-Retaliation Provision from the Bounty Program ... 2. Doing Away with Chevron Deference ... 3. Going Even Further: Recognizing the History of Whistle-Blower Protection ... B. State Whistle-Blower Law Implications

IV. Conclusion

Recommended Citation

Kelsey E. B. Knoer, Bussing v. COR Clearing, LLC, 20 F. Supp. 3d 719 (D. Neb. 2014): Preserving the Right to Tell Your Employers What They Do Not Want to Hear, 95 Neb. L. Rev. 248 (2016)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol95/iss1/7