|
|
|
|
D.C. COURT OF APPEALS EXPANDS EXCEPTIONS TO DOCTRINE OF AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT In the midst of a growing national movement eroding the concept of at-will employment, the District of Columbia has, until recently, stood among a minority of jurisdictions that refused to recognize a general tort of "wrongful discharge" for at-will employees. Until 1991, no exceptions to the at-will doctrine were judicially recognized. In the case of Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. App. 1991), the Court of Appeals carved out "a very narrow" exception - an at-will employee had a cause of action against his employer "when the sole reason for the discharge is the employee's refusal to violate the law, as expressed in a statute or municipal regulation." Id., at p. 32. In 1997, however, this "very narrow exception" was significantly expanded by the Court in the case of Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. App. 1997). In that case, the plaintiff, a nurse, was allegedly fired by the hospital for testifying before the City Council in opposition to tort reform legislation. The Court, en banc, held that in addition to the specific exception articulated in Adams, a cause of action in wrongful discharge would lie for any violation of public policy by the employer of at-will employees. However, Judge Terry wrote for the plurality, stating that the exception only exists if the public policy is "solidly based on a statute or regulation that reflects the particular public policy to be applied, or (if appropriate) on a constitutional provision concretely applicable to the defendant's conduct." Id., at p. 163. In the Carl case, such a public policy was found to exist in a D.C. Code provision (§1-224) which prohibits anyone from influencing, intimidating or impeding any witness in proceedings before the City Council. Two other Court of Appeals decisions decided shortly after Carl indicate that, so far, the Court is reading the newly expanded exception somewhat narrowly. Kerrigan v. Britches of Georgetowne, Inc., 705 A.2d 624 (D.C. App. 1997) was decided the same day as Carl. In that case, while recognizing the existence of the Carl exceptions, the Court found no such public policy at issue where the plaintiff alleged that his employer had violated a "covenant of good faith and fair dealing" in the way it had conducted an investigation of sexual harassment against him. Two months later, in Duncan v. Children's National Medical Center, 702 A.2d 207 (D.C. App. 1997), the Court rejected another employee's claim of an alleged violation of public policy. In that case, the plaintiff was a pregnant technologist who was refused a transfer from a job which exposed her to radiation. Since the plaintiff could not articulate a specific statute or regulation that was violated by the alleged actions of her employer, no cause of action for wrongful discharge existed. In any event, it can certainly be anticipated that the Carl decision will give rise to a host of claims by at-will employees in the District of Columbia for wrongful discharge. |
|
Send E-mail to info(at)jocs-law.com with questions
or comments about this web site.
General contact information.
|
