The Second Circuit issued a non-precedential summary order directing Judge Sweet of the Southern District of New York to reassess a former JP Morgan vice president’s Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower suit against the bank in light of another recent Second Circuit opinion.  Sharkey v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,580 F. App’x 28 (2d Cir. 2014) (No. 13-4741).  The district court granted JP Morgan summary judgment on the whistleblower’s lawsuit under an old standard requiring the whistleblower to show that her complaints “definitively and specifically” related to one of the six enumerated categories of misconduct identified by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and therefore constituted protected activity.  Subsequent to that decision, the Second Circuit adopted a new, more lenient standard:  whether the whistleblower reasonably believed that the client she reported for potential fraudulent activities was violating federal law.  Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214, 221–22 (2d Cir. 2014).  The Second Circuit observed that if the district court determines that the whistleblower engaged in protected activity under the more lenient Nielsen standard, the district court would need to analyze whether the identified protected activity “was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action,” and if so, whether JP Morgan could demonstrate “with clear and convincing evidence that [they] would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of [that] protected behavior.”