Seventh Circuit Permits Whistleblower’s RICO Claims Based on Sox Violation to go Forward

RICO

In an opinion that provides new ammunition for whistleblowers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit permitted Michael DeGuelle’s claim for retaliation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to continue. According to his Complaint, Mr. DeGuelle had previously blown the whistle internally on tax law violations by his employer S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., before he filed a claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) with the Department of Labor.

Subsequent to this filing, Mr. DeGuelle was terminated in apparent retaliation for his SOX filing and whistleblowing activities. Mr. DeGuelle filed a lawsuit alleging various state and federal claims. Two of Mr. DeGuelle’s claims alleged that his former employer violated the federal RICO statutes. This is based upon a pattern of racketeering activity, which includes violation of § 1513 of SOX.

SOX

Under this section of SOX, it is a crime to “knowingly, with intent to retaliate, take[] any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense[.]” 18 U.S.C. 1513(e). The Seventh Circuit stated that “[t]he language of § 1513(e) and logic imply that retaliatory actions always occur after a whistleblower reports others’ wrongdoing,” and consequently the retaliation for such whistleblowing could be considered part of a scheme to prevent disclosure, and thus a proper basis for a RICO claim.

This ruling permits whistleblowers who file a complaint under SOX and are retaliated against to take advantage of the increased damages provisions and attorney fees provisions of the federal RICO statutes. Are you a current or former employee who has blown the whistle against your employer? Are you contemplating blowing the whistle? You should contact Ogborn Mihm LLP immediately to discuss your options.

Published by
Clayton E. Wire

Recent Posts

The Implications of Markley v. U.S. Bank

Navigating New Jurisdictional Requirements: The Implications of Markley v. U.S. Bank for Diversity and Supplemental…

4 weeks ago

Safety in Sports Concussions: What Every Parent, Athlete, and Coach Should Know

Each September, National Concussion Awareness Day shines a spotlight on an injury that too often…

1 month ago

Safety Tips for Off-Highway Vehicles in Colorado

With breathtaking mountain trails, scenic views, and endless terrain to explore, it's no surprise that…

2 months ago

14 Ogborn Mihm Attorneys Honored in 2026 Best Lawyers® Including A Lawyer of the Year Award

14 Ogborn Mihm Attorneys Honored We are proud to announce that 11 of our attorneys…

2 months ago

Stay Safe This Labor Day: Police Step Up DUI Enforcement to Reduce Accidents

As the unofficial end of summer, Labor Day weekend marks one of the last times…

2 months ago

High-Volume vs. Boutique Personal Injury Law Firms: What Colorado Accident Victims Need to Know

If you've been seriously injured in Colorado and are researching your legal options, choosing the…

2 months ago