Lawson v. Fmr LLC & Marken Case Analysis

This document presents a case study analysis of two legal cases: Lawson v. Fmr LLC and Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. The analysis of Lawson v. Fmr LLC focuses on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's whistleblower protection, particularly concerning employees of private contractors serving public companies. It argues in favor of the Supreme Court's position, emphasizing the protection of whistleblowers in mutual fund areas. The Marken case analysis discusses the balance between a minor's interests and an employee's privacy in a sexual harassment investigation, advocating for the minor's protection. It also addresses the implications of the employee being a teacher and the proper handling of personal files during investigations. The document includes references to relevant legal acts and academic articles.

Case 2.5- Lawson v. Fmr LLC.
Answer1
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of lower court because it said that under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the whistle-blower protection is given to the employees who are
employed under private contractors and subcontractors that serve under the public companies
(Kim, 2003). It argued that the provisions of the act protects the employees who are
employed under private contractors and subcontractors in the same way as the employees
who are employed under public contractors and subcontractors are protected in this act. But
the lower court said that only the whistle-blowers of the public companies that are registered
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are protected under Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and
nobody else.
Answer2
Meaning of ‘employee’ within the scope of Sarbanes-Oxley Act is that the person should be
covered under the whistle-blower protections and he should also be engaged in the conduct
that is protected by that section (Ge, 2005). Under this act the employee is interpreted in a
way that he should be employed under public contractors and subcontractors that serve under
the public companies. The public companies should be registered under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Answer3
I am in favour of the position of Supreme Court because the plaintiffs and the petitioners are
the former employees of the private companies that are indulged in advising the mutual funds
and are responsible for managing them. The public companies comprise of mutual funds even
if they don’t have any employees. So, the whistle-blowers are covered under the act f they are

working in the area of mutual funds. Also, the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley act protects
the employees who are employed under private contractors and subcontractors in the same
way as the employees who are employed under public contractors and subcontractors are
protected in this act.
Case 4.5, Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist.
Answer1
The interests of the minor involved in the investigation should outweigh the employee’s
privacy interests. This is because the teacher violated the sexual harassment policy of the
district so he should be punished and not protected from the public. The minor is the victim in
the case; therefore he should be protected from any kind of harm and not the employee.
Answer2
The fact that the employee whose files were sought in the case, was a teacher, does not
change my answer to the above question because it is clear from the case that the employee
was none other than the teacher. Law is same for everyone, no matter the employee is the
teacher of the school or the district. If he/she has done something unlawful then he should be
punished without any biasness or discrimination. The teacher violated the sexual harassment
policy of the district so he should be punished and not protected from the public. The minor is
the victim in the case; therefore he should be protected from any kind of harm and not the
employee, even if the employee was a teacher.
Answer3
It is assumed that the court correctly denied the defendant’s request for accessing the personal
files but if he could have done something that could have tipped the balance in his favour,
and the judge had to grant access to him, then the court should have sent a senior person or

responsible person with him for doing the scanning of the files so that no unauthorized thing
is done by the employee and he does not do any unlawful act.

References:
Act, S.O., 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Washington DC.
Ge, W. and McVay, S., 2005. The disclosure of material weaknesses in internal control after
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Accounting Horizons, 19(3), pp.137-158.
Kim, B., 2003. Sarbanes-Oxley Act.