The VM Blog
In our blog, you’ll read about everything from workplace misconduct, report writing, and investigating stale complaints to interviewing non-employee witnesses. We hope these articles help you better understand the investigative law process, where common misunderstandings and hold-ups happen, and best practices we can all employ.
Who Are Considered “Employees” With the Right to Sue Under California’s Whistleblower Statute? According to the California Supreme Court, Not Elected Officials.
The California Supreme Court’s July 7, 2025 ruling in Brown v. City of Inglewood clarified who may seek relief under California Labor Code Section 1102.5, otherwise known as California’s whistleblower statute. While elected officials may receive compensation and benefits from employers, the California Supreme Court decided in Brown that they are not “employees” eligible for whistleblower protection. This decision may impact workplace investigations into whistleblower complaints.
Lessons Learned from Faulty Investigations
Investigations should be conducted in a thorough, timely, and impartial manner. But what happens when an investigation is not conducted to these standards? As investigators, we frequently learn from the mistakes of other. The investigative news organization Mother Jones recently published an article on an investigation that had several serious missteps; ‘Independent’ Investigations Into Sexual Abuse Are Big Business. Can Survivors Really Trust Them?”
Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decision Expands Whistleblower Protections in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC.
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded protections for whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”). In February 2024, the Court decided Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC. It held that a whistleblower does not need to prove that their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” in taking an adverse action against the employee.