The Dig

The Dig

Share this post

The Dig
The Dig
The “cat’s paw” theory of liability for PwC’s alleged retaliatory firing of Mauro Botta for whistleblowing

The “cat’s paw” theory of liability for PwC’s alleged retaliatory firing of Mauro Botta for whistleblowing

Update: Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Case 3:18-cv-02615-RS

Francine McKenna
Jun 30, 2019
∙ Paid

Share this post

The Dig
The Dig
The “cat’s paw” theory of liability for PwC’s alleged retaliatory firing of Mauro Botta for whistleblowing
Share

Screen Shot 2019-06-30 at 7.58.04 PM

Update:

On June 27, 2019, Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California denied PwC on its motion for summary judgement in the Botta case. PwC had sought summary judgment based on its argument that the individual who made the determination to terminate Botta had no knowledge of Botta’s SEC complaint.

A fact finder may very well ultimately c…

This post is for paid subscribers

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 Francine McKenna
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share