This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was the Vice President of Pricing and Commercial Analysis at D. P contends that before he was fired in March 2010, he engaged in protected activity relating to four categories of suspected unlawful activity at D. In part, P claimed that D engaged in two practices that P believed to be fraudulent. The 'price signaling' was a practice by which D would represent to customers that they would all receive information regarding price changes at the same time; D would actually give some customers advance notice of pricing changes, giving them an advantage over competitors in buying fuel. P was fired on March 12, 2010. P contends that his activities relating to the suspected wrongful activities of D motivated the termination. P filed a complaint against D with OSHA for retaliation. OSHA dismissed the complaint when it determined that P's protected activity did not contribute to his termination. The Administrative Review Board had not issued a final decision on P's case within 180 days of his filing it, so he sued in February 2011. D moved to dismiss, and the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion as to the first three categories of protected activity and allowing amendment to cure deficiencies related to the wire-fraud-based claim. The judge initially recommended that P had to plead that claim with particularity in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b). Eventually, P appealed the dismissal of his claims. The parties dispute whether P in a SOX retaliation suit must plead fraud with particularity in accordance with Rule 9(b).

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.