rather, they questioned her opinion and asked her to explain why she recommended the lower rating. Furthermore, she concedes that she never expressed her belief that changing the rating would violate securities law. Her indication at the meeting that the committee could change the rating but that if it did so, she would not sign on to the report, could have meant that she did not believe that the company deserved a higher rating and would not agree to a report that suggested otherwise.
Because the committee did not express an intent to change the rating, and Getman never expressed a belief to any supervisor that changing the rating would violate any securities laws, we cannot read any protected activities into her behavior. Since her behavior was not protected, we need not review whether her protected activity contributed to her termination.
AFFIRMED.
[ENDNOTES]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.
1 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a).
2 See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2) (establishing the regulatory procedures for "the handling of discrimination complaints under section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002").
3 49 U.S.C. § 42121(a)(1); see also 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(2)(B) ("The Secretary of Labor shall dismiss a complaint filed under this subsection and shall not conduct an investigation otherwise required under subparagraph (A) unless the complainant makes a prima facie showing that any behavior described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a) was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.").
4 29 C.F.R. § 1980.104 (setting forth "Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Section 806 of the Corporate andCriminalFraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.").
5 Allen v. Admin. Rev. Bd., 2008 WL 171588 at *6 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2008) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706; 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(4)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.112(a)); see also Macktal v. United States Dep't of Labor, 171 F.3d 323, 326 (5th Cir. 1999).
6 Allen, 2008 WL171588 at *6 (quoting Williams v. Admin. Rev. Bd., 376 F.3d 471, 475 (2004)).
7 We have not addressed Chevron deference in the context of an ARB decision on Sarbanes-Oxley. It appears that Chevron deference is due, as the ARB is an adjudicative body, but we leave that question for another day. See United States v. Mead, 533 U.S. 218, 226-27 (2001) (holding that "assuming that administrative implementation of a particular statutory provision qualifies for Chevron deference when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority. Delegation of such authority may be shown in a variety of ways, as by an agency's power to engage in adjudication.").
8 See In the Matter of Margot Getman v. Southwest Securities, Inc., U.S. Department of Labor Final Decision and Order, ARB Case No. 04-059. "Q: ‘Mr. Hultgren didn't ask you to upgrade our accumulate rating – claimed accumulate rating from accumulate to buy, did he?'" "A: ‘He didn't tell me to.'" "Q: ‘All right. Any of the other people you claim were present at this review eeting, Mr. Tangun, did he ask you to upgrade your rating from accumulate to buy?'" "A: ‘If he did, I don't remember that, no.'" "Q: ‘Okay. Kit Case, was he present at this meeting?'" "A: ‘I elieve him to be present.'" "Q: ‘All right. Did he ask you to upgrade your rating from accumulate to buy?'" "A: ‘I don't believe so.'" In response to each subsequent question about each member resent, Getman responded that the member did not ask her to grade the rating.