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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2395626/carl-v-childrens-hospital/ ↗

Full Text

1,260 chars

Third, the nature and extent of the remedy provided by legislatively enacted public policy exceptions can be tailored to fit the harm in accordance with existing statutes in a way we cannot. Our legislative body knows full well how to circumscribe with precision the discharge of at-will employees. For example, the Council has determined that where an employee has been discharged for seeking workers compensation benefits, an administrative claim for reinstatement and back pay is the appropriate remedy, Nolting v. National Capital Group, Inc., 621 A.2d 1387, 1388 (D.C.1993); while where an employee has been discharged for attending jury duty, a judicial cause of action for reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees is the appropriate remedy, D.C.Code § ll-1913(c) (1995); and where an employee has been discharged for a discriminatory purpose, the employee’s choice of either an administrative claim for reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief or a judicial cause of action for reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and punitive damages is the appropriate remedy, Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland, 631 A.2d 354, 370-72 (D.C.1993); D.C.Code § 1-2553(a) (1992).

Other Sections in This Document (617)

Full Text