Question

Ken works in a U.S. based pharmaceutical company that sells antibiotics at a low cost to several African countries. He later learns that most of these drugs are expired antibiotics that have been repackaged by the company. Ken immediately informs one of his friends, a federal agent, regarding his company’s illegal activities. Which of the following statements is true of the given scenario?A) There are no implications because the shelf-life of pharmaceuticals is typically much longer than as dated.B) Ken’s constitutional right to freedom of speech would protect him from any form of retaliation by his employer.C) Ken would receive no protection since no comprehensive whistle-blowing law protects the right to free speech.D) Ken would be protected by law from retaliation by his employer.

Answer 1

Answer: D) Ken would be protected by law from retaliation by his employer.

Step-by-step explanation:

Ken would be protected from any retaliation from his employer by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act under section §1514A of the act that protects Whistleblowers.

The act directly prohibits the discharging, demotion, suspension, harassment, or in any other type discriminate against a a whistleblower.

Ken in his actions acted as a Whistleblower and as such would be afforded due protection by the law.