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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2264284/borger-management-inc-v-sindram/ ↗

Full Text

811 chars

Finally, we turn to Sindram’s argument that Borger’s actions constituted source-of-income discrimination under the DCHRA. This argument was pleaded and argued before the trial court and was rejected. The judge ruled that Sindram had failed to present sufficient evidence upon which to make that determination. In his brief here Sindram argues that even if this court found error in the trial judge’s denial of Borger’s motion for partial summary judgment, Borger’s actions nevertheless constituted discrimination under DCHRA and thus afford an independent ground for affirmance. Although Sindram failed to cross-appeal on this issue, such an appeal was not necessary to enable Sindram to argue it as an independent ground for *64 affirmance. See Edwards v. Woods, 385 A.2d 780, 783 (D.C.1978); Langnes v. Green,

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text