Skip to Primary Navigation

Skip to main content

Murray v UBS: Supreme Court just made it easier for whistleblowers to win retaliation claims

People are walking with umbrellas in wet weather.
Photo: Steve Christo/Getty Images

Julie DiMauro

3 min read
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window/tab) Click to share on X (Opens in new window/tab) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window/tab) Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window/tab)

Unanimous decision by US Supreme Court in favor of former UBS bond strategist Trevor Murray adds clarity to what whistleblowers with retaliation claims need to prove.

The high court rejected a bid by the Swiss-based bank, UBS, to see Murray’s firing as part of routine cost-cutting.

The unanimous decision by the justices reinstated a $1.7m jury verdict for former bond strategist Trevor Murray, who has accused UBS of firing him in retaliation for refusing to publish

, , , , ,

Get full access, free for a month

Start your 28-day free trial to continue reading and access
all content on GRIP – no payment details required.

Start free trial Sign in

What’s included:

  • Every new article, plus our 5,000+ archive
  • Daily regulatory insight and guidance
  • Exclusive interviews and in-depth analysis
  • Coverage of industry-leading events and conferences
  • All podcasts and videos, featuring industry experts
  • The full set of Rules Navigator tools
  • An ad-free experience