An employee who believed her supervisor, the VP of Communications, was using company funds to pay for, among other things, illicit relations with soldiers she met through the company’s pen-pal program with members of the military. The employee reported these activities anonymously, but later admitted to her supervisor that she had said some things. Following that, her office was taken, her supervisory role removed, and other actions were taken against her. She resigned, and sued for retaliation and constructive discharge under the SOX Act.

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide?

2. What are the elements of a whistleblower protection (retaliation) claim under the SOX Act? What arguments does the employer make in its attempt to show that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements of her claim? 

3. Why does the court reject the employer’s arguments and rule for the plaintiff? 

4. Do you agree that the plaintiff was constructively discharged? Why or why not? That she reasonably believed that she was reporting fraud of the type covered by the SOX Act? Why or why not? 

5. Why do you suppose the managers at Lockheed Martin acted as they did? What are some practical implications of this case for employers?