Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)

Citation
Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)
Parent Document
Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2005-10-14

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text

1,216 chars
ger sent its letter to DOHA notifying it of its intent to terminate its HAP contract with regard to Sindram. The ALJ correctly noted that, under the statute, Borger’s actions were presumed retaliatory due to the fact that they occurred within six months of Sindram’s petition to the DCRA. D.C.Code § 42-3505.02 (2001). The only way that this presumption could be overcome was by Borger’s establishing that its actions were not retaliatory. One way of doing this was by showing that its actions were “otherwise permitted by law.” The ALJ, in his ruling, specifically stated that his ground for finding no retaliation was that Borger’s actions were “otherwise permitted by law.” This conclusion necessarily required that the ALJ consider and determine whether Borger’s termination of the HAP contract was legally permissible. Although the legality of Borger’s actions was not plead on the papers in Sindram’s petition to the DCRA, it was “actually litigated” in that Borger had to argue the legality of its actions in order to overcome the presumption in favor of Sindram. Additionally, the ALJ ultimately determined the issue of legality in order to reach his final determination that there was no retaliatory action.