Geary

Geary v. Parexel International Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 20255:19-cv-07322California1,617 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

22 Geary was previously employed by Parexel, a clinical research service company, as a 23 Senior Project Manager beginning on February 24, 2014. TAC ¶ 8. Geary alleges that he reported 24 allegations of wire fraud and investor fraud at Parexel to the U.S. Securities and Exchange 25 Commission (“SEC”) during his employment in May 2015 using “the SEC electronic submission 26 system available at that time.” Id. ¶ 2. Parexel terminated Geary on June 30, 2015. Id. ¶ 43. 27 Geary alleges that he was terminated because of his protected whistleblower activity. See id. After several motions to dismiss, the Court found that Geary sufficiently pled one claim for whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78U-6. Order Den. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 170. The Court subsequently bifurcated fact discovery into two phases, with the first phase being limited to the issue of whether Geary submitted a Dodd-Frank whistleblower complaint prior to his termination on June 30, 2015, and the second phase, if necessary, concerning the merits off Geary’s claim. Case Management Order, ECF No. 177. The first phase closed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.