Dodd-Frank Act Offers Financial Incentives, Protection to Whistle-blowers
April 8th, 2011 Posted by DerrickThe Wall Street reform act offers strong protection from retaliation to employees who are whistle-blowers, according to Tennessee attorney Cynthia Gibson. The law applies to all corporations, not just Wall Street traders.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act provides extensive protection of whistle-blowers when they report violations of SEC regulations. Employees on foreign soil as well as within the U.S. are protected when they file a good-faith complaint. So are employees of subsidiaries or affiliates of publicly traded companies.
The Dodd-Frank Act specifically prohibits an employer from using an arbitration agreement to resolve retaliation complaints.
A whistle-blower can collect financial incentives of 10% to 30% for reporting securities fraud or violations to the Securities and Exchange Commission under the controversial award system.
The financial rewards provide an incentive for an employee to go straight to the SEC with complaints, rather than addressing them with the employer first. Attorney Gibson suggests that corporations may want to offer monetary incentives to employees for reporting SEC violations internally. If the incentives are high enough, the problem may be kept in house to be addressed without legal sanctions.
The Dodd-Frank Act also calls for increased diversity in recruiting and hiring, within federal agencies. They are required to create a division to focus on diversity in hiring. Attorney Gibson suggests that this expectation of diversity in staffing and hiring will be extended to federal contractors. Employers will be expected to produce evidence of diversity among employees, or to have an aggressive recruiting program in place to address diversity issues, particularly relating to the employment of women and minorities.
Other aspects of the Wall Street Reform law are more widely known, including the “say on pay” provisions that require publicly traded companies to hold non-binding votes by shareholders on executive compensation. These votes must include the names of executive officers and their salary. Held at least once every three years, some votes are required as often as once per year. Any severance package approved as part of a merger or acquisition must be voted on by shareholders.
Last 10 posts by Derrick
- Hawaii Legalizes Civil Unions - March 16th, 2011
- Employers Ban Cell Phone Use - March 2nd, 2011
- Employee Facebook Rants May Be Protected - February 23rd, 2011
- Avoid Common I-9 Audit Mistakes - January 28th, 2011
- 2011 Harassment Training Year in California - January 19th, 2011
- Courts Limit Exempt Employee Status - December 31st, 2010
- New York Payroll Deductions - December 24th, 2010
- Montana 2011 Minimum Wage is $7.35 - December 1st, 2010
- Vermont Minimum Wage Increases to $8.15 in 2011 - November 26th, 2010
- Republican Victories May Signal More Changes in Regulations - November 10th, 2010
RELATED LINKS
POPULAR POSTS
- Home page
- State Lunch and Break Law Governing Florida
- California Lunch and Break Law Regulations
- North Carolina Labor Law Board
- Arizona Labor Law Board
More Popular Posts- Illinois State Lunch and Break Law Requirements
- Ohio Lunch and Break Law Requirements
- Server Minimum Wage
- Holiday Pay Law Requirements in the State of California (CA)
- Texas Minimum Wage Increase
- State Lunch and Break Law Governing Texas
- State of Michigan Lunch and Break Law
- Georgia Lunch and Break Law Regulations
- Arizona Lunch and Break Law
- Florida (FL) Maternity Leave Law
POPULAR TAGS
CATEGORIES
AUTHORS
- Adrianne Dunne
- Alexandra Waldron
- Amelia Figueroa
- Ashley Crawford
- Bethany Stroh
- Cara Lawrence
- Christine Carter
- Derrick Lange
- Emily Richardson
- Hannah Dixon
- Heather Connors
- Jane Morgan
- Jared Franklin
- John Bellamy
- Jolie Beckett
- Justine Murchie
- Karen Husson
- Kimberly Matthews
- Lindsay Ross
- Madison Thomas
- Marilyn Walters
- Mark Hathaway
- Nicole Andrade
- Rachel Maguire
- Sarah Fitzgerald
- Savannah Case
- Susan Symthe
ARCHIVES
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
-
Additional Archives - December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- August 2003
- August 2002
- April 2002
- February 2002

Tags: Dodd Frank Act, financial incentives, law, protection, Wall street reform, whistle blower