United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term 2021 Argued: April 1, 2022 Decided: February 10, 2025

Nos. 20-4202(L), 21-56(XAP)

Trevor Murray

Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,

v.

UBS Securities, LLC, UBS AG,

Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 14-cv-927, Failla, Judge. Before: PARK, MENASHI, and PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. Trevor Murray briefly worked for Appellants UBS Securities, LLC and UBS AG (“UBS”). But he was terminated after he complained to a supervisor that other employees had violated Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. Murray then brought a claim for retaliation against a whistleblower under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. That statute required Murray to show that his whistleblowing was a “contributing factor” in his termination. At trial, the district court instructed the jury that a “contributing factor” is one that “tend[s] to affect in any way” a decision. Murray won.

On appeal, we vacated and remanded because the district court’s instruction did not require Murray to show that UBS acted with “retaliatory intent.” But the Supreme Court reversed, holding that retaliatory intent or “animus” is not an element of Murray’s claim.

Now, on remand from the Supreme Court, UBS maintains that the district court’s instruction was wrong in two ways. First, the instruction allowed the jury to find that whistleblowing generally is the type of thing that “tends” to affect a termination, rather than something that actually affected Murray’s termination. Second, the instruction allowed the jury to find that Murray’s whistleblowing “affected” his termination “in any way”—even if whistleblowing did not affect his termination in a way that “contributed” to it by making it more likely.

We agree with UBS. The district court’s instruction strayed from the text of § 1514A by expanding the definition of a contributing factor—and so the scope of UBS’s liability—beyond what the statute

2 allows. A contributing factor is one that causes or helps cause a subsequent event. But it must actually cause or help cause the termination decision—it is not enough merely to influence the termination or generally to be the type of thing that tends to cause termination.

We thus VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Judge Pérez dissents in a separate opinion.

THOMAS G. HUNGAR, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC (Eugene Scalia, Andrew G.I. Kilberg, Gabrielle Levin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants.

ROBERT L. HERBST, Herbst Law PLLC, New York, NY (Robert B. Stulberg, Patrick J. Walsh, Stulberg & Walsh LLP; Scott A. Korenbaum, Scott A. Korenbaum, Esq.; Benjamin J. Ashmore, Sr., Herbst Law PLLC on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee.

PARK, Circuit Judge:

Trevor Murray briefly worked for Appellants UBS Securities, LLC and UBS AG (“UBS”). But he was terminated after he complained to a supervisor that other employees had violated Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regulations. Murray then brought a claim for retaliation against a whistleblower under 18

3 U.S.C. § 1514A. That statute required Murray to show that his whistleblowing was a “contributing factor” in his termination. At