On Tuesday, a panel of judges from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, raised concerns over the reinstatement of whistleblower claims for former Barclays Capital Inc. executive Brian La Belle. The court appeared to lean towards the banking giant’s stance that La Belle doesn’t qualify as a protected whistleblower.
La Belle alleges that Barclays dismissed him as a result of his whistleblowing activities. However, during questioning, the three-judge panel seemed to echo Barclays’ argument that La Belle doesn’t enjoy whistleblower protection since his concerns pertained to a policy enforced by Barclays themselves to prevent fraud, and not one instituted by a federal entity.
“It’s not required by the SEC. Isn’t that where you start and stop?” Second Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan asked La Belle’s attorney, Steven Barentzen of the Law Office of Steven Barentzen. The question underscores the core issue of whether whistleblowing claims can indeed be premised on complaints made about employer-specific policies that aren’t mandated by federal law.
For more in-depth coverage on this matter, you can read the full article on Bloomberg Law.