You have the right to report misconduct to the SEC, and your employer is prohibited from interfering with or discouraging that reporting. SEC rules clear the path for this reporting and protect a whistleblower’s right to tell the SEC about wrongdoing.

If you’ve seen something at work that doesn’t feel right, you might already be weighing a difficult decision: should you speak up—or stay quiet? That decision can feel isolating. The law recognizes that reality and is clear: You have the right to report potential misconduct to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). And your employer is not allowed to impede your right to do so.     

The SEC’s “anti‑impeding” rule exists to provide this protection. It prevents companies from using policies, agreements, or pressure—subtle or direct—to discourage you from coming forward. That protection matters when deciding whether or not to speak up, as often the stakes feel personal, uncertain, and high.

Protection Starts Before You Say Anything

Anti‑impeding protections focus on clearing the path before you report misconduct. To that end, the rule tries to address possible barriers that might stop you from speaking up in the first place.

That means companies cannot force you to sign or agree to:

• Confidentiality provisions that restrict speaking with regulators; 
• Requirements to notify your employer before contacting the SEC; 
• Contract terms that create, or appear to create, legal risk for coming forward. 

The SEC does not wait to see whether someone was actually silenced. Instead, it asks a more practical question: Would this language make a reasonable person think twice about speaking up?  If the answer is yes, that alone can violate the SEC’s anti-impeding rule.  

Where These Issues Show Up Most Often

In many cases, an anti-impeding violation isn’t obvious. It shows up in documents that feel routine—sometimes even boilerplate. Common examples include: 

• Confidentiality agreements that require notice before contacting regulators; 
• Severance agreements that waive the right to receive whistleblower awards; 
• Internal investigation instructions telling employees not to speak with “third parties.” 

On their face, these provisions can seem standard. But depending on how they are written or communicated, they can create exactly the kind of friction the law is designed to prevent, and are therefore illegal. 

 Anti‑Impeding vs. Anti‑Retaliation

You may have heard of anti‑retaliation protections—and they are critical. But anti‑impeding and anti-retaliation protections serve different purposes: 

• Anti‑impeding protects your ability to speak before anything happens 
• Anti‑retaliation protects you after you’ve spoken up 

Retaliation involves clear consequences—being fired, demoted, or sidelined—that a company takes in response to whistleblowing 

Anti‑impeding addresses the doubt that can set in beforehand: 

• Can I do this safely? 
• Will this come back to me? 
• Am I allowed to talk to someone outside the company? 

The law is designed to remove those doubts—and give you a clear path forward.   

Recent Cases Show How Serious the SEC Is About the Anti-Impeding Rule

• Foot Locker (May 2026): The SEC ruled that Foot Locker violated the Anti-Impeding Rule by including clauses in separation agreements that purported to waive employees’ rights to claim whistleblower awards. The Foot Locker case is the most recent example of the anti-impeding rule, but it’s far from the only instance when the SEC has made it clear that it will act when companies create obstacles, even indirectly. 
• Activision Blizzard (2023): The SEC settled an enforcement action against Activision Blizzard for the company’s use of separation agreements that allegedly required employees to notify Activision Blizzard if regulators requested information from them. 
• JP Morgan Securities (2024): The SEC settled charges that JP Morgan’s agreements allegedly limited customers’ ability to initiate contact with the SEC. The settlement demonstrates that the rule applies broadly—not just to employees, but also to former employees, clients, and others with relevant information. 

Across these cases, the message is consistent: companies cannot make it harder for people to come forward.

Thinking About Your Next Step?

If you are considering reporting misconduct, you do not have to figure it out alone. Understanding your rights—and how different reporting options may affect you—can make a significant difference in how you move forward. 

If you are reviewing an agreement, you should take a closer look at how it treats your rights. Keep in mind:

• You generally cannot be barred from speaking with regulators

• Language can be problematic even if it is never enforced

• Standard‑looking provisions can still affect your options

Speaking with a whistleblower attorney can help you make an informed decision based on your specific situation.