Geary v. Parexel International Corporation
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-07322
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Geary v. Parexel, Judge Davila granted Parexel summary judgment, ending Geary’s Dodd-Frank whistleblower-retaliation claim.
William John Geary and Parexel International Corporation; the ruling resolved Geary’s only remaining Dodd-Frank whistleblower-retaliation claim.
What happened
In Geary v. Parexel International Corporation, William John Geary, who represented himself, claimed that Parexel fired him for reporting suspected fraud to the Securities and Exchange Commission during his employment. Parexel moved for summary judgment on Geary’s only remaining claim.
The court examined whether Geary had submitted a whistleblower complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission before Parexel terminated him. The court found that the evidence did not show such a filing. An agency representative found no electronic complaint from Geary during the relevant period, and Geary’s evidence did not establish that he had filed one.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted Parexel’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that Geary did not qualify for protection under the Dodd-Frank Act, granted summary judgment on his only remaining claim, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the matter.
The detailed version
- Geary v. Parexel International Corporation · No. 5:19-cv-07322
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 13, 2025
Background
William John Geary, representing himself, sued Parexel International Corporation under the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower-retaliation provision. Geary alleged that he reported suspected wire fraud and investor fraud at Parexel to the Securities and Exchange Commission during his employment in May 2015 and that Parexel terminated him on June 30, 2015, because of that protected activity.
After earlier motions to dismiss, one Dodd-Frank retaliation claim remained. The court divided fact discovery into phases, with the first phase addressing whether Geary had submitted a Dodd-Frank whistleblower complaint before his termination. Parexel then moved for summary judgment, a procedure allowing judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome.
Legal standard and analysis
The Dodd-Frank Act protects employees who report securities-law violations to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the manner required by the Commission’s rules. The court stated that an employee must provide that information to the Commission before termination to qualify as a protected whistleblower.
The court found that the undisputed evidence showed Geary did not submit a whistleblower complaint to the Commission in May 2015 or at any other time during his employment at Parexel. William Hankins, an Assistant Director in the Commission’s Office of Market Intelligence, provided a sworn declaration stating that the Commission had no record of an electronic complaint filed by Geary between January 1, 2015, and July 1, 2015.
Geary relied primarily on a 2017 email exchange with a Commission accountant. The court found that the email did not discuss a Commission complaint filed in May 2015 and instead suggested a reference to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration complaint filed in November 2015. The court also found that Geary’s OSHA complaint did not refer to a May 2015 Commission complaint. Finally, the court rejected Geary’s unsupported suspicion that the Commission representative’s statement was illegitimate because Geary supplied no evidence that the statement was fabricated, fraudulent, or improperly obtained.
Ruling
Judge Edward J. Davila granted Parexel’s motion for summary judgment on Geary’s only remaining claim. The court held that Geary did not qualify as a whistleblower entitled to protection under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the matter, and the court stated that a separate judgment would follow.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.