Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Against EyeKor: Alleged Violations

In Travers v. EyeKor, Inc., Stephen Travers and Robert Ward, former employees of EyeKor, Inc., brought a wrongful termination lawsuit against their employer. The case centers around allegations that the plaintiffs were terminated after raising concerns about the company's compliance with federal regulations.

Background of the Case

Stephen Travers and Robert Ward, former employees of EyeKor, Inc., filed a lawsuit claiming they were wrongfully terminated in retaliation for their complaints about the company’s proprietary system, "Excelsior." This system was used to manage ophthalmic testing, information gathering, and information analysis related to clinical trials. Travers, who served as a Senior Director of Clinical Research, and Ward, an IT Manager, asserted that the Excelsior system failed to comply with the data security rules set forth by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as well as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). They also claimed the system was not compliant with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The plaintiffs argued that they were terminated because they voiced their concerns to their superiors, stating that EyeKor needed to comply with federal regulations and that they would not participate in conduct that violated these regulations. According to the plaintiffs, EyeKor’s CEO became visibly upset when Travers raised these objections, and when Ward reported these concerns to the company’s Director of Regulatory Compliance, the director allegedly responded with, "we fake it until we make it."

Circuit Court Proceedings

EyeKor, Inc. responded to the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for wrongful termination under Wisconsin law. The circuit court agreed with EyeKor and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for wrongful termination. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they were required to violate any laws as a condition of their employment or that they were terminated for refusing to violate the law.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review of the case. The court upheld the circuit court’s dismissal, agreeing that Travers and Ward failed to allege a cognizable claim of wrongful termination. The appellate court emphasized that Wisconsin follows the employment-at-will doctrine, which generally allows employers to terminate employees for any reason, except in narrow circumstances where the termination violates a well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing law.

The court referenced key Wisconsin cases, including **Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet** and **Bushko v. Miller Brewing Co.**, which established the limited scope of wrongful termination claims in the state. To succeed in a wrongful termination claim, an employee must show that they were terminated for refusing to comply with an illegal directive or for fulfilling a legal obligation imposed upon them. The court concluded that Travers and Ward merely alleged that they acted consistent with public policy by refusing to participate in noncompliance but did not demonstrate that EyeKor required them to violate any laws.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals concluded that the allegations made by Travers and Ward were insufficient to establish a wrongful termination claim under Wisconsin law. The court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the case, reinforcing the narrow scope of the public policy exception to Wisconsin’s employment-at-will doctrine.

This case underscores the challenges employees face when bringing wrongful termination claims under the narrow public policy exception in Wisconsin. Employers in the state can generally terminate employees at will, except in cases where the termination directly violates a clearly established public policy based on existing law.