Jones v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122483
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Derek A. Jones, an at-will WASA employee, sued WASA for wrongful termination and unlawful discrimination; the Court previously dismissed some claims and permitted amendment.
- After an initial dismissal for failing to plead causation on a federal discrimination claim, Jones filed an amended complaint; that discrimination claim survived initial scrutiny but the common-law wrongful-termination claim was challenged.
- Jones alleges WASA fired him for refusing to (1) schedule an applicant for a test when no vacancy existed (invoking the AFGE union contract) and (2) process hiring paperwork for an applicant whose credentials were not yet verified (invoking CMPA and WASA/D.C. personnel regulations).
- WASA moved to dismiss the wrongful-termination count under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Jones failed to plead a public-policy basis to overcome the at-will employment doctrine.
- The Court evaluated whether Jones invoked the public-policy exception (Adams refusal-to-perform-illegal-acts theory) and found his sourced bases (private union contract, CMPA provision, and WASA/D.C. personnel regulations) insufficient.
- The Court dismissed the wrongful-termination claim without prejudice, leaving only the discrimination claim to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination falls within the public-policy exception to at-will employment | Jones: he was fired for refusing to perform acts violating the AFGE union contract and CMPA/WASA regulations | WASA: union contract and internal/regulatory personnel rules do not establish the kind of public policy needed to defeat at-will status | Dismissed — Plaintiff failed to plead a public-policy source sufficient to invoke the exception |
| Whether violation of a private union contract can ground the public-policy exception | Jones: union-contract protections (Article 21) embody public policy preventing discharge for enforcing contract terms | WASA: a private agreement does not create a fundamental public policy | Rejected — private labor agreement is not a basis for the narrow exception |
| Whether CMPA § 1-617.04 or WASA/D.C. personnel regulations supply public policy | Jones: CMPA and municipal regulations codify the relevant policies | WASA: CMPA provision cited relates to collective-bargaining rights and does not address Jones’s claim; regulations reflect internal personnel rules, not fundamental public policy | Rejected — neither the CMPA provision nor personnel regulations, as pleaded, establish the requisite fundamental public policy |
| Whether Jones could rely on the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act as alternative basis | Jones referenced DCWPA in briefing | WASA: Jones did not plead a retaliation/whistleblower claim in his complaint; cannot add in opposition | Not considered — claim raised too late and, in any event, a statute with its own remedy cannot ground the tort-based public-policy exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and legal conclusions not accepted as facts)
- Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991) (public-policy exception to at-will employment is very narrow)
- Carl v. Children’s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997) (retaliation theory for public-policy exception)
- Carter v. District of Columbia, 980 A.2d 1217 (D.C. 2009) (public-policy exception unavailable where statute provides its own remedy)