> According to the Court, Sullivan’s conduct was not covered under Dodd-Frank because his reporting was internal and he did not alert the SEC or others outside

> According to the Court, Sullivan’s conduct was not covered under Dodd-Frank because his reporting was internal and he did not alert the SEC or others outside the company about the alleged misconduct. Sullivan did not “claim to have blown a whistle… but only to have confronted [the fund’s president] himself.” These cases are always more complicated than presented. Whistleblower protections apply to people who blow the whistle to an outside agency, not idiots who pick fights with powerful people without backup. This is such unfathomable incompetence my first thought was to question whether "compliance officer" was even his actual job title. On that note: > The Court decided that, unlike the attorney in Wieder, Sullivan’s role in regulatory compliance was not at the core of, nor was it the only purpose of, his job. The court noted that Sullivan’s compliance officer role was only one of the five positions he held, and he was not associated with other compliance officers in a firm where all were subject to self-regulation as members of a common profession, as was the case in Wieder. I recently investigated someone "fired" from the same position for similar reasons. Realistically, he was laid off as part of an unannounced RIF but played the whistleblower card only after he failed to substantiate claims of race and age discrimination. The DoD was only notified of the supposed compliance failure an entire month after he was let go, and only after two other unrelated defenses failed.