Michael R. Rosella v. Long Rap, Inc.
121 A.3d 775
D.C.2015Background
- Rosella sued Long Rap, Inc. for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; jury returned verdict for Long Rap on wrongful termination; Rosella appealed alleging trial errors.
- Long Rap operated as a private clothing-store chain, run by three officers including Rendelman, Ezrailson, and Kupchak; Rosella served as Director of Finance and Controller.
- After promotion, Rosella alleged officers directed improper accounting practices (postdating checks, recording transactions in wrong periods, advancing funds to owners, paying owners’ personal expenses) and that he protested these proprieties.
- Rosella claimed his discharge in April 2006 was retaliation to interfere with a potential sale to Blue Holdings; he contends his protests would threaten the sale’s audit and disclosure.
- Following cross-claims and a trial, the jury found for Long Rap on wrongful termination; the case proceeded through bankruptcy, leaving only Rosella’s wrongful discharge claim on appeal.
- The court affirmed, holding Rosella failed to state a proper wrongful-termination claim under public policy; it did not address other trial-manner objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosella stated a wrongful-termination claim under public policy | Rosella argued protected activity and public-policy concerns. | Long Rap argued Adams narrowed to a strict, limited exception and Rosella did not show a clear public policy. | Claim fails; no clear public policy and no forced illegal act. |
| Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that conduct must be illegal | Rosella contends misapplication of public-policy standard. | Long Rap maintains the instruction aligns with the applicable public-policy framework. | Not sustained as dispositive; affirm on other grounds (insufficient state of public policy). |
| Whether the admission of Rosella's initial demand letter and settlement amount was improper | Rosella argues the letter and settlement figure were relevant to the claim. | Long Rap sought to frame the termination as connected to sale negotiations. | Not addressed on the merits in light of other conclusions (case affirmed on broader grounds). |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991) (at-will rule with narrow public-policy exception for unlawful conduct)
- Carl v. Children’s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997) (recognizes public-policy claims beyond Adams; requires close fit to policy and statutory/constitutional anchors)
- Washington v. Guest Servs., Inc., 718 A.2d 1071 (D.C. 1998) (discharge to protect public health regulations aligned with policy)
- McFarland v. George Wash. Univ., 935 A.2d 337 (D.C. 2007) (statutory protections against retaliation for protected activity)
- Bryant v. District of Columbia, 102 A.3d 264 (D.C. 2014) (article continues development of public-policy-based protections)