To state a prima facie claim under the Act, the complaint must alleged that "(1) the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer knew, actually or constructively, of the protected activity; (3) the employee suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and (4) the circumstances raise an inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the personnel action." Welch v. Chao, 536 F.3d 269, 275 (4th Cir. 2008). C-Bass filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Harkness failed to state a prima facie claim for retaliation under the Act because her reports did not constitute protected activity.

The Court, in granting C-Bass' Motion for Summary Judgment, held that to prove that she engaged in a protected activity, Harkness must demonstrate that she possessed both a subjective and objectively reasonable belief that the conduct about which she complained constituted a violation of relevant law. In other words, Harkness was required to show that she actually believed Sonnenfield's conduct to be a violation of pertinent law and that a reasonable person in her position would believe the same. The Court found that because Harkness took no steps to determine whether Regulation FD applied to Sonnenfield's actions, she had no basis for her belief that his actions violated the regulation. The Court went on to state that Harkness had the experience and resources available to investigate whether Regulation FD applied, and her failure to conduct an investigation prior to reporting Sonnenfield's actions was not objectively reasonable.