Leon was the director of medical information at IDX systems. After IDX began an

Question

Leon was the director of medical information at IDX systems. After IDX began an investigation of Leon’s activities, it required him to turn over his company-issued laptop computer. When he refused, IDX terminated Leon and required him to return his laptop computer. After initial resistance, Leon turned over his laptop. A forensic examination of the laptop showed that files were deleted and that a user had deployed special software in an attempt to “write-over” and hide documents. Leon eventually filed suit claiming that IDX terminated him in violation of the whistle-blower provision of the SOX Act and that his termination was based on the fact he had evidence on his laptop about IDX improprieties.

1. Is Leon protected under the SOX Act even if there is no evidence that he actually had information about unlawful IDX activities?
2. Could Leon be in violation of the SOX Act document destruction rules for deleting files?

Explanation / Answer

1. Yes, leon is protected under the whistle blower provision of the SOX act even if there is no evidence that he actually had information against the unlawful activities of IDX because the law only requires leon to be confident of the suspect that IDX is involved in some fraud activities. The only mandate that leon should file a comolaint in proper conduct against IDX

2. Yes, leon could be in violation of the document destruction rule of the SOX act as under section 802, it is not accepted and there will be penalities if the documents are found to be intentionally damaged which in the case of leon is true.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse L
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.