Assume that Pizzazz Pizza is a publicly traded corporation subject to Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (which is discussed in the Lockheed Martin v. Administrative Review Board that you read in Module 12). Pizzazz Pizza's Assistant Chief Financial Officer, Herbert, has reported to the Chief Financial Officer an alleged violation of the securities laws by Pizzazz Pizza. Herbert reasonably believes that the conduct he reported violates one of the enumerated federal statutes or regulations under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (see section of Lockheed Martin case describing the "reasonable belief" requirement).

At the time of reporting the alleged securities law violation, Herbert's main work duties involved overseeing Pizzazz's currency hedging activities and its cash management system. One month after Herbert reported the alleged violation, the company reassigned him. Herbert's compensation and benefits remained the same. Herbert was transferred from Pizzazz's corporate offices in New York City to an office in one of Pizzazz's mushroom growing warehouses near Albany, New York. A few weeks later he was given a special assignment of calculating the capital expenditures needed to retrofit all the air purifiers in Pizzazz's warehouses and processing plant. The project was launched to help the company meet the airborne infectious disease requirements of the law referenced aboveso there was an underlying business purpose. However, Herbert was not trained as an engineer, so his new duties involved following a group of engineers who inspected the air handlers and told him now much it would cost to upgrade them in order to meet the requirements of the statute. Herbert would then sum up all the amounts and send them to the CFO in New York City.

After 15 months of working with engineers, air handlers, and elementary arithmetic, Herbert quit his job at Pizzazz and moved back to New York City to look for a new job. Herbert sued Pizzazz. Please discuss the main arguments that you expect Herbert and Pizzazz to make in this case. Please tie your answer to relevant details and findings of the Lockheed case.