Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)

Citation
Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)
Parent Document
Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1997-09-23

Other Sections in This Document (617)

Full Text

830 chars
It is fair to conclude, especially in light of this provision, that modification by this court of the at-will doctrine, in conformity with the conventional processes of the common law, would not constitute interference with legislative prerogatives. When the legislature criminalized threats to witnesses who testified before it, see D.C.Code § 1-224 (1992), it did not thereby create a statutory civil action for damages for employees in Ms. Carl’s circumstances. See, e.g., Fountain v. Kelly, 630 A.2d 684, 690 (D.C.1993) (“where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy, a *180court must be chary of reading others into it”) (citation omitted). It would be altogether unreasonable, on the other hand, to infer from Section 1-224 that the Council meant to foreclose a common law right of action for wrongful termination.