Davis v. Community Alternatives of Washington, D.C. Inc.
74 A.3d 707
D.C.2013Background
- Quarles and Byrd were former employees of Community Alternatives of Washington, D.C., Inc., which operates group homes for adults with intellectual disabilities.
- They alleged they were discharged for complaints about client treatment and staff working conditions, constituting wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
- The trial court granted Community Alternatives summary judgment for preemption and lack of administrative remedies; this Court previously remanded on Byrd/Quarles in Byrd v. VOCA Corp. of Washington, D.C., 962 A.2d 927 (D.C.2008).
- On remand, trial occurred and the court granted JMOL after plaintiffs failed to prove a close fit between protected conduct and termination.
- Quarles was terminated for allegedly falsifying time records; Byrd was terminated after an incident with a coworker, with the termination tied to an inability to find another position elsewhere.
- Regulatory and policy arguments focused on care for residents; at issue is whether these policies create a close nexus to the terminations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs showed a close fit between protected conduct and termination | Quarles/Byrd assert protected conduct caused termination. | termination was due to job misconduct; no close fit. | No close fit; JMOL proper |
| Whether the public policy against abuse/neglect provides a close fit for termination | Regulations reflect a public policy to protect residents. | Evidence showed misconduct, not protected activity driving termination. | Not sufficient for close fit |
| Whether the trial court should have added Res-Care, Inc. as a defendant | Res-Care ownership/affiliation could imply liability. | Not necessary given JMOL outcome. | Moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. VOCA Corp. of Washington, D.C., 962 A.2d 927 (D.C.2008) (extended public policy wrongful discharge to non-at-will employees; close fit required)
- Carl v. Children’s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159 (D.C.1997) (en banc; limited reach of tort; must show close fit)
- Fingerhut v. Children’s Nat’l Med. Ctr., 738 A.2d 799 (D.C.1999) (requires close fit between policy and conduct)
- Wallace v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 715 A.2d 873 (D.C.1998) (more than mere protected conduct required for public policy claim)
- Guest Servs., Inc., 718 A.2d 1071 (D.C.1998) (illustrates close fit and protected conduct doctrine)
- Freas v. Archer Servs., Inc., 716 A.2d 998 (D.C.1998) (statutory-lavored protection and close fit considerations)