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

696 chars
Sindram also contends that, even if the ALJ did determine the legality issue, that determination was not “essential” to the final judgment. In support of this contention he argues again that it was not the legality of Borger’s termination of the HAP contract but rather Borger’s motive for terminating the contract that was essential to the ALJ’s determination. As we noted previously, this argument is without merit, and we find that the ALJ’s determination of whether Borger’s termination of the HAP contract was legal was at the very heart of his ruling, for had he not made that determination he would have been unable to conclude on the record before him that the action was not retaliatory.