A securities-firm employee alleged that UBS retaliated against him after he reported suspected securities-law violations. The lower courts treated the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as requiring proof that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. The Supreme Court rejected that heightened requirement. It held that the statute uses a burden-shifting framework under which an employee must show that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action, while the employer may avoid liability by proving it would have taken the same action anyway. The Court reversed the Second Circuit and remanded for application of the correct standard.