Rinaldi v. NICE Ltd

Background

Peter Rinaldi, who was representing himself, alleged that he was employed by Actimize and/or its parent companies, NICE Systems, Inc. and NICE, Ltd., from April 17, 2017, through November 30, 2018. He worked as a Pre Sales Engineer and alleged that he was discharged after questioning the effectiveness of company software and voicing concerns internally.

The remaining defendants were NICE, Ltd., NICE Systems, Inc., Actimize, Barak Eilam, Paul Mills, Christine Bonamarte, and Richard Malish. They moved under Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings. That motion uses the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the court accepts well-pleaded facts as true but requires enough factual detail to make the claim plausible.

Dodd-Frank claim

The court dismissed Rinaldi’s retaliation claim under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The court explained that a person suing under Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower-retaliation provision must first provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with information about a securities-law violation. Rinaldi’s amended complaint did not allege that he reported anything to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it did not allege facts suggesting a securities-law violation. Because it did not allege protected activity, it also did not adequately allege a causal connection between that activity and his discharge.

Sarbanes-Oxley claim

The court dismissed Rinaldi’s claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for lack of jurisdiction. Before bringing this type of claim in federal court, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, whose responsibilities for these claims have been delegated to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The amended complaint did not allege, and Rinaldi did not argue, that he had filed such a complaint.

New York Labor Law claim

The court dismissed Rinaldi’s claim under New York Labor Law § 740. That law protects an employee who discloses an employer’s violation of law, rule, or regulation when the violation creates a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety or constitutes health care fraud. The court found that the amended complaint did not adequately allege a violation of law, rule, or regulation, a qualifying danger to public health or safety, or health care fraud.

Leave to replead and disposition

The court said a second opportunity to amend would not likely cure the problems, but allowed Rinaldi to seek leave to replead by filing a letter by October 12, 2021. The letter had to identify additional facts that could address the missing allegations for each claim, including any report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, exhaustion through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the alleged legal violations, and the connection between any disclosure and the discharge.

The conclusion states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. It does not state that the dismissal is with prejudice or without prejudice. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 161 and mail the opinion and order to Rinaldi.