Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02196/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Sarah W. Hays, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2196

___________

Herschel Pearl, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

DST Systems, Inc., * Western District of Missouri.

*

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: December 1, 2009

Filed: January 7, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Herschel Pearl brought a claim for damages against DST Systems, Inc. (DST),

alleging that he was terminated after engaging in protected activity, in violation of

Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which is codified in 18 U.S.C.

§ 1514A, and wrongfully discharged under Missouri state law. The district court1

granted summary judgment for DST, and Pearl appeals. After careful de novo review,

viewing the evidence and all fair inferences from it in the light most favorable to

Appellate Case: 08-2196 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622045
-2-

Pearl, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006), we find no

reversible error. 

Specifically, as to Pearl’s complaint to DST regarding a possible

understatement of earnings, we conclude that such a complaint did not amount to

protected activity under SOX. Even assuming Pearl subjectively believed DST had

understated its earnings in a way that violated SOX, the evidence showed that such

a belief was not objectively reasonable. See Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d

468, 475-77 (5th Cir. 2008) (in SOX action, plaintiff bears initial burden to prove

elements by preponderance of evidence; SOX prohibits publicly traded company from

retaliating against employee who reports information to supervisor regarding any

conduct which employee reasonably believes constitutes violation of one of six

enumerated categories; employee’s reasonable belief must be scrutinized under both

subjective and objective standard); cf. Bechtel v. Competitive Tech., Inc., 2005-SOX00033, 2005 WL 4888997, at **30-32 (Dep’t of Labor Oct. 5, 2005) (complainant’s

threat to report suspected insider trading to SEC did not constitute protected activity

under § 1514A because complainant’s belief--which was partially based on “snippet”

of conversation that he overheard and rumor that another individual had advanced

knowledge of successful litigation--was not reasonably founded). Further, for the

reasons stated by the district court, we conclude that none of the other complaints that

Pearl made to DST amounted to protected activity, and that summary judgment was

proper as to the state law claim. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2196 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622045