Accordingly, the elements of a wrongful termination claim under the WPA are: 1) the employee was a protected person as defined by the statute; 2) the employer discharged the employee; and 3) the employee's status as a protected person was the motivating factor for the discharge. See Steak N Shake Inc. v. White, No. 4:18-CV-00072-SRC, 2020 WL 85172, at *10-11 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2020).
Plaintiff suggests without citation that because DHSS is authorized by statute and regulation to address communicable diseases and matters of quarantine, that this unidentified “guidance” qualifies as a law. Compare, e.g., Farrow v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 407 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. banc 2013) (recognizing claim alleging hospital violated standards of medical procedure like the Nursing Practice Act); Steak N Shake Inc., v. White, No. 4:18-cv-00072-SRC, 2020 WL 85172 at *12 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2020) (involving tax fraud and “misuse of funds”).
The Court finds that Defendants' criticism goes to the foundation of Krachmalnick's testimony, rather than the admissibility factors under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See Steak N Shake Inc. v. White, No. 4:18-CV-00072-SRC, 2020 WL 85172, at *7 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2020); see also Sphere Drake Ins. PLC v. Trisko, 226 F.3d 951, 955 (8th Cir. 2000). Unless Plaintiffs lay the proper foundation showing that the data entries in Exhibits 6 and 7 are actually traceable to Plaintiffs' marks and Defendants' allegedly infringing activity, the Court may ultimately determine that Krachmalnick's quantification of sales is not relevant to any fact at issue.