Archived News:

No Employee Remedy under Wisconsin Common Law for Employer Conduct Regulated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

In Repetti v. Sysco Corp., a case decided on February 28, 2007, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s wrongful discharge retaliation claim.  Repetti had been a “logistics coordinator” for the defendant, Sysco Corp.  In that capacity, he prepared financial reports showing income/expense and profit/loss information based on Sysco’s Logistics Department operations.  Repetti claimed he learned during the course of performing his duties that “a corporate officer was altering numbers in an attempt to falsely show profit or larger profit in the Operations Department by moving income from the Logistics Department into the Operations Department for purposes of financial reporting.”  Repetti complained about the alleged falsifications, but he claimed he was told that “it was in his best interests” to leave the issue alone.  However, Repetti continued to complain and Sysco terminated Repetti’s employment.

Repetti sued under Wisconsin common law, claiming wrongful discharge.  As is the general rule in Wisconsin, Repetti’s employment was at-will, meaning his employment relationship with Sysco could be terminated by either party at any time for any reason or for no reason at all.  However, Repetti argued that the narrow public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine applied to him because his discharge was in violation of a fundamental and well-defined public policy of corporate accountability and whistleblower protection in the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 

The court of appeals did not actually reach the question of whether Repetti stated a valid claim based on a fundamental and well-defined public policy reflected in existing law.  Instead, the court held that Repetti’s claim under Wisconsin law was properly dismissed because Sarbanes-Oxley provided Repetti with an adequate remedy because it provides reinstatement and make-whole relief to an employee whose employment is terminated in violation of the Act.  The Court held that where the legislature (state or federal) has provided a statutory remedy for a wrongful discharge, that remedy is exclusive.  Therefore, Repetti should have sought relief under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Go to In The News

This page is intended to provide general information about various legal issues and developments.  It is not intended to be a complete list of all recent legal developments.  This page does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon in dealing with specific factual or legal matters.