Stein Mart's Termination of Whistleblower Did Not Violate Sarbanes-Oxley
Christina DeIasi | Bloomberg Law
Debra Taylor Johnson could not convince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that her whistleblower retaliation claims should be reinstated against her former employer, Stein Mart, Inc. (Stein Mart). In an unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on summary judgment of Johnson’s claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Sarbanes-Oxley) and the Florida Whistleblower Act (FWA).
Johnson Reports Accounting Issues
Johnson started working at Stein Mart in 2001 as a buyer for the boys’ clothing department. She was promoted in 2002 to be a buyer for the women’s moderate petite department. After this promotion, Johnson allegedly started to make internal complaints about certain Stein Mart business practices that she believed were inappropriate. These included, Johnson alleged, Stein Mart (1) collecting markdown allowances from vendors, (2) changing season codes on older inventory, and (3) improperly accounting for inventory. In October 2003, Stein Mart transferred Johnson to the position of inventory planner for the fragrance, watch, and bath and body departments. Johnson viewed this as a demotion, although she retained the same pay, benefits, bonus calculations, and opportunities for advancement.
Johnson’s Performance Problems
A year later, Johnson failed to follow Stein Mart’s fragrance forecast plan for 2004. “Instead, she made a decision that new fragrances were selling better than some of the old ones and funded the ones she thought would be more profitable.” As a result, several store managers reported low inventories in the fragrances that Johnson was supposed to purchase, and Johnson received a written performance counseling on December 1, 2004. A negative performance evaluation followed on February 11, 2005, and when Johnson’s performance did not improve, Stein Mart terminated her on May 19, 2005.
Stein Mart Proved Defense
Johnson filed a complaint claiming that Stein Mart violated Sarbanes-Oxley and the FWA by discharging her in retaliation for reporting fraudulent business practices. However, the Eleventh Circuit, like the district court below, found no evidence in the record to support Johnson’s claim. To the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit found that Stein Mart “affirmatively demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have terminated Ms. Johnson’s employment in the absence of her protected conduct.” Specifically, Stein Mart offered proof that it terminated Johnson because of how she mishandled the company’s fragrance purchases during the fall of 2004 and her subsequent failure to improve her performance.
This document and any discussions set forth herein are for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, which has to be addressed to particular facts and circumstances involved in any given situation. Review or use of the document and any discussions does not create an attorney-client relationship with the author or publisher. To the extent that this document may contain suggested provisions, they will require modification to suit a particular transaction, jurisdiction or situation. Please consult with an attorney with the appropriate level of experience if you have any questions. Any tax information contained in the document or discussions is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code. Any opinions expressed are those of the author. Bloomberg Finance L.P. and its affiliated entities do not take responsibility for the content in this document or discussions and do not make any representation or warranty as to their completeness or accuracy.
© 2011 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Bloomberg Law Reports ® is a registered trademark and service mark of Bloomberg Finance L.P.