Welch v. Chao

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an employee had to show both a subjective belief and an objectively reasonable belief that the conduct he complained of constituted a violation of relevant law
• concluding that appellant had forfeited “new arguments by failing to raise them before the ARB”
• indicating we owe no deference to an agency determination that is “otherwise not in accordance with law”
• indicating we owe no deference to an agency determination that is “otherwise not in accordance with law”
• affirming the dismissal of a whistleblower claim due to the plaintiffs failure to justify the reasonableness of his belief that the company’s conduct was fraudulent under the then-existing legal standards governing securities fraud
• pointing out that the ARB has “held that § 1514A protects an employee’s communications based on a reasonable, but mistaken, belief that conduct constitutes a securities violation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).