wrongful discharge claim in District of Columbia

2018Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991). 2 Carl v. Children‘s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997) (en banc). 3 Id. at 164 (Terry, J., concurring), 197 n.2 (Steadman, J., dissenting). 44 In this case, we conclude, first, that appellant Bereston‘s complaint did not sufficiently allege a wrongful discharge claim.

2018Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991). 2 Carl v. Children‘s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997) (en banc). 3 Id. at 164 (Terry, J., concurring), 197 n.2 (Steadman, J., dissenting). 44 In this case, we conclude, first, that appellant Bereston‘s complaint did not sufficiently allege a wrongful discharge claim.

2018Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991). 2 Carl v. Children‘s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997) (en banc). 3 Id. at 164 (Terry, J., concurring), 197 n.2 (Steadman, J., dissenting). 44 In this case, we conclude, first, that appellant Bereston‘s complaint did not sufficiently allege a wrongful discharge claim.

2018Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991). 2 Carl v. Children‘s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997) (en banc). 3 Id. at 164 (Terry, J., concurring), 197 n.2 (Steadman, J., dissenting). 44 In this case, we conclude, first, that appellant Bereston‘s complaint did not sufficiently allege a wrongful discharge claim.

2015Credit Union, 816 A.2d 793, 807 (D.C.2003) (stating that an at-will employee cannot bring a wrongful discharge claim against an employer nor a tortious interference claim for the same termination); McManus v. MCI Commc'n Corp., 748 A.2d 949, 958 (D.C.2000) ("it is axiomatic that an employer cannot interfere with its own contract”); Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of Apostolic Faith of Washington, D.C. v. Beards, 680 A.2d 419, 433 (D.C.1996) (finding no basis for an at-will employee to bring a tortious interference claim against an employer for wrongful discharge); Cf. Metz v. BAE Sys

2015Credit Union, 816 A.2d 793, 807 (D.C.2003) (stating that an at-will employee cannot bring a wrongful discharge claim against an employer nor a tortious interference claim for the same termination); McManus v. MCI Commc'n Corp., 748 A.2d 949, 958 (D.C.2000) ("it is axiomatic that an employer cannot interfere with its own contract”); Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of Apostolic Faith of Washington, D.C. v. Beards, 680 A.2d 419, 433 (D.C.1996) (finding no basis for an at-will employee to bring a tortious interference claim against an employer for wrongful discharge); Cf. Metz v. BAE Sys

2015Credit Union, 816 A.2d 793, 807 (D.C.2003) (stating that an at-will employee cannot bring a wrongful discharge claim against an employer nor a tortious interference claim for the same termination); McManus v. MCI Commc'n Corp., 748 A.2d 949, 958 (D.C.2000) ("it is axiomatic that an employer cannot interfere with its own contract”); Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of Apostolic Faith of Washington, D.C. v. Beards, 680 A.2d 419, 433 (D.C.1996) (finding no basis for an at-will employee to bring a tortious interference claim against an employer for wrongful discharge); Cf. Metz v. BAE Sys

2008See Smith, supra note 9, 991 P.2d at 1143 (holding that exhaustion of contract remedies under a CBA is not required for a wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of public policy because it arises outside of the CBA); Finch, supra, 322 Md. at 197 , 586 A.2d at 1280 (holding that exhaustion of a CBA’s administrative remedies is not required where there is no need to construe the CBA or the question of whether or not the CBA was violated is irrelevant to the abusive discharge action); Conaway v. Webster City Products Co., 431 N.W.2d 795, 800 (Iowa 1988) (holding that retaliatory tort actio

2008See Smith, supra note 9, 991 P.2d at 1143 (holding that exhaustion of contract remedies under a CBA is not required for a wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of public policy because it arises outside of the CBA); Finch, supra, 322 Md. at 197 , 586 A.2d at 1280 (holding that exhaustion of a CBA’s administrative remedies is not required where there is no need to construe the CBA or the question of whether or not the CBA was violated is irrelevant to the abusive discharge action); Conaway v. Webster City Products Co., 431 N.W.2d 795, 800 (Iowa 1988) (holding that retaliatory tort actio

2008See Smith, supra note 9, 991 P.2d at 1143 (holding that exhaustion of contract remedies under a CBA is not required for a wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of public policy because it arises outside of the CBA); Finch, supra, 322 Md. at 197 , 586 A.2d at 1280 (holding that exhaustion of a CBA’s administrative remedies is not required where there is no need to construe the CBA or the question of whether or not the CBA was violated is irrelevant to the abusive discharge action); Conaway v. Webster City Products Co., 431 N.W.2d 795, 800 (Iowa 1988) (holding that retaliatory tort actio

2008See Smith, supra note 9, 991 P.2d at 1143 (holding that exhaustion of contract remedies under a CBA is not required for a wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of public policy because it arises outside of the CBA); Finch, supra, 322 Md. at 197 , 586 A.2d at 1280 (holding that exhaustion of a CBA’s administrative remedies is not required where there is no need to construe the CBA or the question of whether or not the CBA was violated is irrelevant to the abusive discharge action); Conaway v. Webster City Products Co., 431 N.W.2d 795, 800 (Iowa 1988) (holding that retaliatory tort actio

2008See Smith, supra note 9, 991 P.2d at 1143 (holding that exhaustion of contract remedies under a CBA is not required for a wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of public policy because it arises outside of the CBA); Finch, supra, 322 Md. at 197 , 586 A.2d at 1280 (holding that exhaustion of a CBA’s administrative remedies is not required where there is no need to construe the CBA or the question of whether or not the CBA was violated is irrelevant to the abusive discharge action); Conaway v. Webster City Products Co., 431 N.W.2d 795, 800 (Iowa 1988) (holding that retaliatory tort actio

2008See Smith, supra note 9, 991 P.2d at 1143 (holding that exhaustion of contract remedies under a CBA is not required for a wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of public policy because it arises outside of the CBA); Finch, supra, 322 Md. at 197 , 586 A.2d at 1280 (holding that exhaustion of a CBA’s administrative remedies is not required where there is no need to construe the CBA or the question of whether or not the CBA was violated is irrelevant to the abusive discharge action); Conaway v. Webster City Products Co., 431 N.W.2d 795, 800 (Iowa 1988) (holding that retaliatory tort actio

1999See Lyles v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 572 A.2d 81, 82 (D.C.1990) (firing someone who insists he or she is disabled from working “does not by itself satisfy the ‘animus’ requirement for a finding of wrongful termination”).

1997This court’s prior decision summarized these claimed policies as follows: (1) a citizen’s right to engage in political expression before the Council without fear of harassment or intimidation; [2] (2) a professional nurse’s duty to participate in the legislative process, to advocate positions of public importance on behalf of patients, and to educate the legislature so that it can make informed public policy decisions; [3] and (3) the evidentiary rule requiring expert testimony to establish a prima facie case of negligence in a medical malpractice action. [4] Carl v. Children’s Hospital, 657 A

1997This court's prior decision summarized these claimed policies as follows: (1) a citizen's right to engage in political expression before the Council without fear of harassment or intimidation; [2] (2) a professional nurse's duty to participate in the legislative process, to advocate positions of public importance on behalf of patients, and to educate the legislature so that it can make informed public policy decisions; [3] and (3) the evidentiary rule requiring expert testimony to establish a prima facie case of negligence in a medical malpractice action. [4] *161 Carl v. Children's Hospital,

1993Compare Sorrells, supra, 565 A.2d at 289 with Adams, supra, 597 A.2d at 34 (adopting narrow public policy exception to the at-will doctrine under which employee may sue former employer for wrongful discharge based on employee’s refusal to violate statute or municipal regulation).

1991We must therefore determine whether the evidence would support recovery under either of these two theories. [9] *35 To recover damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must show "(1) `extreme and outrageous' conduct on the part of the defendant which (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes the plaintiff `severe emotional distress.'" Howard University v. Best, 484 A.2d 958, 985 (D.C.1984) (citations omitted).

1991We must therefore determine whether the evidence would support recovery under either of these two theories. 9 To recover damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must show “(1) ‘extreme and outrageous’ conduct on the part of the defendant which (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes the plaintiff ‘severe emotional distress.’ ” Howard University v. Best, 484 A.2d 958, 985 (D.C.1984) (citations omitted).

1991See, e.g., Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025 (1985) (en banc); Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra note 5; Girgenti v. Cali-Con, Inc., 15 Conn.App. 130 , 544 A.2d 655 (1988); Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn.1987); Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.1985); Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis.2d 561 , 335 N.W.2d 834 (1983).

1991See, e.g., Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025 (1985) (en banc); Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra note 5; Girgenti v. Cali-Con, Inc., 15 Conn.App. 130 , 544 A.2d 655 (1988); Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn.1987); Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.1985); Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis.2d 561 , 335 N.W.2d 834 (1983).