Fairman v. District of Columbia

WAGNER, Before NEBEKER and STEADMAN, Judges.** Senior

WAGNER, Judgе: Senior Appellant, Fairman, John A. appeals from an of the granting order trial court application appellee, District of Co- (District), lumbia to vacate denying award and Fairman’s motion to dismiss ar- application. bitrator had determined that Fairman was entitled to severance pay accordance with the em- terms of amendments to his ployment agreement with the District Hospitals Columbia Health and Public (PBC).1 Corporation Benefit Consistent argument, with the District’s court concluded that enforcement agreement amended would violate a well- public poliсy defined dominant in that agreement amended had not been proved by Responsibility the Financial (Con- Management Authority Assistance Board). appeal, trol On Fairman chal- lenges that determination. The District now concedes that the contract amend- subject ment was not to Control Board * 26, 2004, May Corpora- On the Office of 1. The District Columbia Council created tion Counsel of the District of was Columbia public the PBC to oversee the District’s health Attorney renamed the Office General hospitals. care facilities and Mayor’s the District of Columbia. See Order 32-261.1, (1997). §§ etseq. 2004-92, (2004). D.C.Reg. ** argument, Judgе Wagner the time of At was court, Judge Judge Chief Steadman Judge. was an Associate his increased policy upon from October review and that $175,000 per year. salary base vacating the trial court relied enti- amended to severance nature.” “is not of the clearest award salary “all upon termination to tle Fairman urges this court to owing under the re- due and and benefits grounds other herein- affirm on discussed .... maining [the] terms grounds after. conclude on alternate We year’s ... to less than one no case [i]n that Fairman is not entitled to severance .... level salary and all benefits еmploy- his pay under amendments to of severance.” effect the time contract, but that is entitled to ment he Fair- terminated In June PBC original under his contract. sought Fairman employment, man’s and the to we remand case the terms of the termination under proceedings court for further consistent rejected The PBC agreement. modified opinion. with this demand, request- and Fairman Fairman’s arbitration to which the District submit- ed I. objection. the During arbitra- ted without Background Factual the as proceedings, District raised an tion Association.” to ry and finally provided man under rules of service was the time of severance.” The contract also agreement which cannot terms of which Fairman ficer a severance contract on October cably agree General shall be Fairman September upon termination to (CEO) approved all benefits at Manager “[t]hat any dispute arising and resolved to be from by the PBC the PBC and Fairman and Chief Executive Of- PBC. 1999. American Arbitration which entitled Fair- 1, through “six months sala- His The level 1997 under October entered resolved ami- appointed original contract, in Board, under this effect into a term had as at policy void modifications ment,” month severance issue whether the 1999 amendments $662,925 July trol Board. After extensive unmodified cations [had] ever been ed.2 Control award to Fairman arbitration contending that “the 27, 2001, “by purporting to enforce in that the Board.” based on the contract presented payment award ^[1997] not authorized filed a the arbitrator entered an provision contained [been] “proposed in to the [1997] for review award violated petition employment [Fairman] in District contended expenditure submitted the amount of Superior ^[1999] to vacate the hearings, on to the Con- as illegal and is the six- amend- modifi- Agree- Court, agree- public for a had his April the PBC ment,” it in one of its represented original amendments executed prepared that it was filings with the court any term agreement, payment which set Fairman’s a amount owed “to make employment at five years commencing under this ^[1997] agreement.” per- Vice Chair of Board findings, The Chair and 2. In her the arbitrator stated part: Amendments on tinent Directors executed such increase, Salary Respondent. Employment behalf of The Amendments allowance, (“John Agreement, A. allow- housing between Claimant and automobile (“District ‍‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‍Fairman”) Respondеnt of Co- provisions, forth in such Amend- ance set Hospitals Benefit lumbia Health and Public ments, implemented offi- were in fact April, are Corporation”), executed in Respondent. cials binding parties are enforceable. on the Fairman filed motion to dismiss the M.D. & Trammell Crow Real Assocs. petition, contending (D.C. District’s that the Dis- Servs., Estate 738 A.2d alleged statutory trict had basis for 1999) Skahill, (citing 617 A.2d Shaff vacating the arbitration award. The trial (D.C.1992)). Our review of confir court denied Fairman’s motion stated mation or the vacation of an arbitration as its if reason that the arbitrator exceed- de award is novo. See id. at 1216. “Arbi powers alleged, ed her as there would be tration in the gov District of Columbia is statutory valid reason for vacating erned the District of Columbia Uniform award. On the merits - Act, §§ Arbitration 16-4301 to petition, the trial court noted that an arbi- Shaff, [ ].” tration award that violates 962. Section 16-4311 of that Act limits the cannot stand. The court concluded that permissible grounds an vacating arbi policy exception is applicable Tauber, tration award. See this case because': a party sought “Where ... has not It is clear that the Control Board was to vacate award arbitrator’s on stаtuto required approve respondent’s rily-recognized grounds pursuant employment amended contract in order § D.C.Code 16^4311 ... courts cannot set enforceable, for it to be pursuant aside for law awards errors of or fact such 47-392.03(b) (2001). § made Shaff, arbitrator.” 617 A.2d employment agreement 1999 amended statutory grounds at 963. One was never submitted award, vacating an arbitration that is Any Board. award requiring gov- arbitrator has exceeded his or her authori unapproved

ernment on the 16-4311(a)(3) (1997). § ty. See D.C.Code amended employment agreement con- reviewing “In whether an arbitrator has travenеs District of Columbia statuto- Indéed, § his ry provision. powers pursuant exceeded 16- any person at- tempting 4311(a)(3), to enforce the award would we not review [the] do arbitra committing illegal an act ... Tauber, tion award on the merits.” 738 is a there well defined and dominant (quoting Kaplan, A.2d at 1217 v. Poire 491 agree- that is violated if the (D.C.1985) (further 529, 534 A.2d citations ment is enforced. omitted)). omitted and quotations internal that, The trial court giv- further concluded “If an only arbitrator ‘rules on matters strong public policy, en this it was not scope within governing arbitra necessary consider whether the arbitra- clauses, tion [will] he not еxceed his au- tor had based award on es- equitable her Poire, thority_’” 491 (citing Id. A.2d toppel reasons, grounds.3 For these (footnote 533-34) omitted). granted

trial petition, court appeal and this followed. exception recog An has been requirement nized to the that an arbitra II. can tion award be vacated on statuto Generally Legal Applicable Principles ry grounds. “It well settled “[Jjudicial if arbitration award not stand it con review of arbitration Tauber, paramount pub- awards is limited.” Laszlo N. travenes considerations of portion arguments already 3. One of District’s was that had the contract been by deciding powers arbitrator exceeded her performed. equitable estoppel grounds the case on in that

443 the District 931, response in argues man Lopata Coyne, lie v. 735 A.2d policy.” (D.C.1999) court challenged DeKalb v. in trial (quoting City never 938 Fighters, agree- employment Ass’n Fire Local validity International of the 1997 236, 367, 131 Ill.Dec. Ill.App.3d ment, 1 contained the (1989)). 867, “The 538 N.E.2d arbitrability dispute. clause, or the the arbitrator’s decision refusal enforce on position that the District’s He contends requires policy grounds on ‘some position with the appeal ‍‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‍is inconsistent public policy’ that is ‘well defined explicit court, and there- took in trial that it dominant, is to be ascertained judicial and fore, by principles of barred precedents and legal to the laws reference argues that estoppel. He also equitable general from considerations by not arguments such the District waived ” Id. (quoting interests.’ supposed public trial asserting them the court. Union, AFL- Int’l Paperworkers United Misco, Inc., CIO U.S. estoppel judicial doctrine of (1987)) (further S.Ct. 98 L.Ed.2d 286 taking position one precludes party omitted). citations trial court and the on an issue Porter Novel opposite position appeal. on III. (D.C. li, Bender, Inc. argues that the trial court Acad, 2003) Plough Inc. v. National (citing ruling ex- erred that the arbitrator Sciences, n. 10 powers her as the term is defined ceeded Novelli, (D.C.1987)). court Porter 16^311(a)(3), in D.C.Code that a com applied the doctrine held arbitration in the award is violation estopped denying was mercial tenant public policy. response, the District validity agreement a holdover where the acknowledges that the stay premised a appeal it had secured on grounds, upon which the trial court relied the landlord was enti upon the claim that urging, at incorrect. agreement. the triple to rent under tled the Specifically, District concedes that part of estoppel Id. Judicial at 187-88. agreed the to when Fairman and PBC the equitable estoppel. the doctrine of broader modifications, were, fact, they in contract estoppel equitable See id. 188. The subject to the not review Control “ party ‘a full provides doctrine that with argues the Board.4 District for facts, accepts the which the knowledge of grounds, on other set forth affirmance contract, transaction, statute, benefits herein, which were not raised before the subsequently regulation, or order not in trial arbitrator or the court. to the position avoid take an inconsistent ” Agreement Challenge the effects.’ A. to 1997 obligations or corresponding Co., Arbitration Provision v. Ford Motor 809 Thoubboron (D.C.2002) 1204, (quoting Am. 1212 First the had no argues that PBC District Commodity Trad Corp. Futures Disc. provi- authority include an arbitration to Comm’n, 222 U.S.App. D.C. ing 343 in It contends that the sion its contract. (other (2000)) citation F.3d under which whole contract omitted). Fair- unenforceable. was void and claimed District, re- requirements for did meet the According Board tract not to the substantially thе criteria for had narrowed view. review, subject its and the con- contracts to arbitrate”). agree

We with Fairman’s ar that agreement there is no guments that application of party may either doctrine “[A] not submit a claim to arbi precludes taking po challenge District from tration and authority then appeal, contrary position sition on to its in the arbitrator receiving act after an court, the trial agreement the 1997 Lopata, supra, unfavorable result.” provision and the Nghiem arbitration are void. A.2d at (quoting v. NEC Elec only tronic, Inc., (9th Not did the District challenge Cir.), 25 F.3d denied, validity agreement the 1997 or its arbi cert. 513 U.S. 115 S.Ct. provision, (1994) (other tration but affirmatively also it 130 L.Ed.2d 544 citation and omitted)). asserted that agreement the 1997 quotation val internal marks Par id, it award, when sought have the ticipation proceeding arbitration which was amendment, based on the objection without claim any waives Indeed, vacated.5 represented District the award is void because there was no trial granted court that if it agreement its Lopata, arbitrate. 735 A.2d petition award, to vacate the (citing Nocera, the District Jaffe ready 1003, 1010(D.C.1985)). stood “to make payment any The District’s first amоunt owed under ^[1997] agree challenge to the 1997 contract and the ar Moreover, ment.” participat District bitration came well after the ar lengthy ed in proceedings arbitration with bitrator had made a substantial award to claiming out the contract was void Fairman based on the contract amend and that the PBC could not challenge enter con ments. This only arose after tract containing provision.6 an arbitration parties expended had ‍‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‍considerable have, It could but did not a stay seek to time and resources in the pro arbitration challenge validity ceeding during court 16-4302(b) arbitrate. See D.C.Code accepted validity of the (2001) (providing that application, arbitrability “[o]n 1997 contract and the may stay Court proceeding dispute under it.7 For the first time on (and commenced or threatened on appeal after District realized showing support petition In corporate purposes.” its to vacate the arbi- D.C.Code 32- award, (1997). 262.5(f) trator’s power the District stated the follow- It also had the to officers, executives, ing: “employ manage- and personnel prescribe [and ment ... to] their At issue in this case is under which of two employment, compensa- duties and terms of packages severance does [Fairman] receive tion, §32- and benefits....” payments. severance and other [The Dis- 262.5(m) (1997). express We have no found trict] contends that is entitled [Fairman] to provision, none, and the District has cited payments receive employment under an precluding entering the PBC a from contract agreement dated 1997.... October This containing a for arbitration. The agreement approved by the District of prohibition seeks District to distill this from Responsibility Columbia Financial and statutory authority. light other of our dis- ("Control Managemеnt Authority Assistance position, argument. we need not address this valid, ”) added). (emphasis Board and is contrast, By contends that he [Fairman] Fairman, 7.According pro- the arbitration pay entitled to pay- severance and other ceedings days involved seven of witness testi- purported ments under a series amend- mony, parties pre-hearing the and filed and April dated employ- ments the court, post hearing In the briefs. trial agreement. ment award, support of its motion vacate the the memorandum, controversy, 6. At time supporting the relevant to this the filed a District a brief, authority reply PBC had tо "make execute supplemental con- brief and a none of ... necessary appropriate challenged tracts the which the 1997 or the powers provision. exercise and fulfillment of its appropriation for not for out of the paid the flaw in that it would have concede year in which the contract was the fiscal position accepted court that trial (7) made; violate amendments positions did the District switch urging) its they not in that were original and claim that the contract under Coun- District of Columbia proved the matter was arbitrated was void. which that this court acknowledging cil.9 While judicial precludes estoppel doctrine of from those grounds can on different affirm positions in party switching legal a “ court, Fairman upon by the trial relied ‘according this manner to the vicissitudes should be argues arguments that these Novelli, self Porter su- interest....’” rejected are new con- they because and/or v. pra, (quoting A.2d at 188 Lofchie tradictory, they do not meet the ex- P’ship, 580 A.2d Washington Square Ltd. they in that ception for their consideration (D.C.1990) (concurring opinion)). and are pleaded by parties not were reject argu- we from the record. apрarent the arbi- ments that the 1997 contract and illegal tration clause are unenforcea- Generally, reviewing a case ble.8 novo, may affirm an order for de this court upon different from those relied reasons Policy Challenge B. Public court, long grounds “as as 1999 Contract Amendments apparent are from the record and were argues that the 1999 pleaded by parties.” Greycoat Hano amendment on which Fairman’s claim is Ins., 764, 767 Liberty ver Mut. 657 A.2d (1) based is void the amendments because: (D.C.1995) (citing Real Es Dale Denton upon in rath- were acted executive session tate, Fitzgerald, 635 A.2d Inc. (2) meеting; quorum er than at (D.C.1993)). This rule is “one of waiver present of the Board of PBC was not jurisdiction.” Dis discretion rather than (3) time; that severance amendment Dwight v. Helen Reid trict Columbia imposed improper right an restraint on the Found., n. 3 Educ. Fairman, of future Boards to terminate (D.C.2001) M.T., 550 A.2d (citing D.D. v. since PBC’s statute stated (D.C.1988)). recog court has This plea- general shall serve “at the manager that “in situations and ‘exceptional nized Board”; pro- sure of prevent necessary clear miscar when CMPA; record,’ vision does not conform to the justice apparent from the riage of a prior the amendments cоntradict order rule from the usual we deviate approved Board sev- our limited to issues review is (quoting only in amount of Id. properly preserved.” erance six A.2d Gerstenfeld, 514 pay; Fairman’s services could Williams month’s agree- attack judicial equitable principles, 9. District seems to the 8. Under appellant’s arguments ground previously that the PBC had no As also. stat- ment on this authority agree disputes to ar- ed, submit precluded making from this the District authority under the of District 161, bitration judicial by argument the doctrines of of Bailey, U.S. 18 S.Ct. Columbia event, original estoppel. any equitable For the 43 L.Ed. 118 fails. approved was the Control agreement reasons, reject argu- we same District’s Board, authority over such which had final that is unenforcea- ments the 1997 contract approval. See Council contracts after authority no ble the District had because (1997). is no in- § 47-392.3 There employees and that this contract with its that record dication not conform to the District's did approval. acted without Council Board (CMPA). Comprehensive Act Merit Personnel (D.C.1986)). Generally, excep- paramount it because contravenes consid- tion “if applied will be issue is purely Lopata, public policy. erations of su- law, particularly one of if rec- the factual at pra, 938. The District’s complete ord is and a remand for further policy argument upon was based the claim development pur- factual would serve no that were approved amendments pose, fully briefed, been issue has required violation of the law that unfairly no party prejudiced.” would be proval of the Control Board. The District (citing Id. 11 and 19 FedeRal Moore’s now that approval concedes Control Board 56,441[3][c] §§ and 205.05[2] PRACTICE, not required the time relevant (Matthew ed.2000)). 3d Bender of the execution the amendments. Howev- With exception, appellant’s one er, it quite argument makes the related arguments belated do meet re that the required amendments at least the quirements application of the exception Council, approval of the which was not to the rule that issues not raised in the argument appears obtained. This to raise trial court will not ap be considered on law, pure question a of no further peal. That area concerns whether required factual record is to address it. against pub 1999 amendments are void as Found., supra, See Reid A.2d Educ. policy they lic approved because were not n. 3. we will consider the District Columbia Council as argument. See id. required by law.10 created, When argued given the PBC was it was in the trial court that the arbitration authority award cannot stand broad to “make and execute con- CMPA, remaining arguments subchapters The District's can certain none disposed summarily. arguments These pro- of which includes CMPA's severance pre- do requirement either not meet the 32-262.8(c) (1999) §§ vision. See D.C.Code senting exceptional warrant- circumstances -262.8(a)(1) Fourth, -(a)(2). the District ing prevent miscarriage jus- review to a concedes Control Board had not en- tice, they preconditions or do not meet the any limiting tered order to six law, presenting pure questions having months, year that the but one severance was complete avoiding factual record or unfair reduced to six months based on informal prejudice party. to either See Reid Educ. Thus, any argument staff discussions. Found., (cita- supra, at 33-34 n. 3 pub- the severance amendment contravened First, omitted). tion the factual record for prior policy by violating lic Control Board arguments the District’s the amend- Finally, must fail. we order decline to hold ments enacted closed session and on this record that the 1999 amendments are quorum present without is not established. they § void because contravene D.C.Code 1- Second, contrary argument, to the District’s (1992), provides pertinent part appear it does not that the amended sever- employee that no District shall be hired "un- provision public policy by ance violates in- employment pay- less such is authorized and truding upon the PBC Board’s discretion specifically provided in ment therefor the law 32-262.4(g) fire Fairman. See D.C.Code granting appropriation or is authorizеd (1997) (providing Manager that the General provided....” as hereinafter The statute is Board.”) pleasure "shall serve at the rights, any, if silent about of individuals preclude The severance does not by governmental entity hired in contraven- termination; merely provided Fairman’s it Thus, provision. tion of this we discern no arrangement a compensation him with if his clearly defined that would war- termination occurred before his contract’s Third, rant invalidation of the amendments on that argu- termination date. basis, where, here, particularly argu- as this ment based on be- the CMPA is no avail cause, appeal after ment was raised for the first time on the first six months of exis- its tence, required fully comply developed. PBC was with and not (A) originally available § appropriations tracts.” See D.C.Code 32-362.5® con- the contract (1997). performance for the by gov- made Certain contracts cerned; ap- Council required ernmental entities § 1-1130.11

proval. See D.C.Code Section (B) currently available appropriations part in 1973 1-1130 was first enacted as type acquisi- procurement for the District of Columbia Self-Government contract, tion covered Act Reorganization and Governmental оbligated; otherwise or Act). (Home § See D.C.Code 1-1130 Rule (C) pay- for those appropriated funds (1992) ver- (unchanged from 1973 ments. sions). Subsequently, amendments (3)No under contract entered into those Only pertinent enacted to this law. unless this shall be valid subsection present issue to be forth need set contract to the Mayor submits the 1995, Congress In enacted the Dis- here. approval and for its the Coun- Council Responsibility trict of Columbia Financial (in the contract accor- approves cil Management Act of 1995 Assistance by act dance with criteria established (FMRAA). 104-8, 109 See Pub.L. No. Council). be The Cоuncil shall (1995). That act amended section Stat. required to take affirmative action by adding required 1-1130 which section days. approve the contract within 45 for contracts in- approval Council which approve If no action taken million expenditures volved of over one days, calendar contract within 45 period. in a dollars twelve month be disapproved. contract shall deemed 1130(b). 1996, Congress § In D.C.Code 1— 1-1130(c) (1997). § D.C.Code passed Appropriations Act of Omnibus 7, 1996, August after the 1995 On 1996, which included the District Co- ‍‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‍FMRAA, in the but before Amendments appropriations lumbia for 1996. See Act, the 1996 Amendments in the Omnibus (1996). 104-134, Pub.L. No. 110 Stat. 1321 passed the the D.C. Council Act, provisions of this which became Hospitals Public Columbia Health and 9, 1996, September effective on amended which created Corporation Benefit Act following adding section 1-1130 (Sept. D.C.Reg. PBC. See 43 reads, as pertinent part, 1996). Significantly, in section 301 of follows: act, the D.C. asked Con- proposed Council (c) Multiyear contracts. con- exempt the PBC from the gress may The District enter into multi- of section 1-1130 approval provisions tract year goods contracts to obtain was they existed at the time bill as for which funds other- services would D.C.Reg. (Sept. passed. See 43 obligation only wise be available for 1996). However, accept did not Congress year within the fiscal Although the PBC recommendation. propriated. statutory exempted from other was several governing PBC’s requirements, funds avail- neither the If the are not made history statutory indicate such a statute nor the able for continuation of exempt year, the PBC to be subsequent contract into a fiscal requirements in effect approval ter- shall be cancelled or contract contract fact, minated, created. the time the PBC was and the cost сancellation history oppo- statutory indicates the paid from— the or termination (2001). § 1-204.51 is now in D.C.Code 11.

448 statutory In pronouncement,

site. section of D.C. Law 11-212 that “[n]o (the eventually law which became the contract entered into under this subsection statute), governing PBC’s rec- Council Mayor shall be valid unless the submits Congress ommended that amend section approv- the contract to the for Council its exempt 1-1130 the Home Act to Rule al,” expresses legislative a clear intent that statutory requirement the PBC from the any approved contract not so would be approval over for contracts one million doubt, policy, invalid. This no seeks to However, Congress dollars. to declined promote accountability financial of execu- history, do light so.12 this it is clear agencies tive branch and entities. This subject that the PBC was to the Council approval lack of renders the Amendments approval requirement in section 1-1130. invalid, question calls and therefore into subject

Since the PBC was the validity of the arbitration award to the 1-1130, approval requirements in section extent that it relied upon them. lan- the question is whether the 1999 amend (c) guage of subsection indicates that its required apprоval. ments such Subsection prevent intent was to the District from (c) may states that the into enter entering long into term contracts where spanning years although contracts several funding yet had not appropriated been un- are only appropriated funds from cur less the Council first this approved action. year; rent fiscal such however contracts The required 1999 Amendments the Dis- § require approval. Council 1- D.C.Code years pay up trict to Fairman to five 1130(c)(3). Fairman that there is contends pay and benefits. The arbitra- no evidence in the indicating record upon predicated tion award these Amend- the 1999 Amendments constituted a multi appears give roughly ments year argument per contract. This is not years pay three of severance and benefits. amendments, suasive. Under the Fair- required If the District were this man’s contract term October award, the award would stand clear September appropria- 2003. The explicit statutory poli- contravention of the for tions bills effect fiscal 1998 and fiscal cy against entering long-term into such 1999 indicate no appropriations would agreements in the absence of Council beyond available each of those current proval. approval, In the absence such years. 105-100, fiscal Pub.L. No. See public Amendments violate the (1997) (“No § part Stat. law, policy, expressly by provided for any appropriation contained Act against entering multi-year into contracts obligation shall remain available for be- without legislative approval. An award yond the year current fiscal ex- unless based thereon would violate a clear and herein.”); pressly provided so No. Pub.L. support that would dominant 105-277, (same 108,112 § Stat. 2681 vacating Lopa- an arbitrator’s award. See 1999). for fiscal Sinсe funds for the PBC ta, supra, (recognizing 735 A.2d at 938 year within the available fiscal the courts refuse to enforce arbi- appropriated, Fairman’s contract (c) on a scope trator’s decision based clear falls within the subsection laws). requires approval ascertainable reference to policy Council. Indeed, (1997) (adding exceptions in its next amendment to section for contracts of the 1-1130, WASA, Congress exceptions Authority, added several Convention Center D.C. However, approval highway improvement). requirements. the contract See Con- 1-1130(d) (1999), gress grant exemption § created declined to such an 11704(a), No. PBC. id. Pub.L. Stat. protection reasons, litigant considerations foregoing For we conclude interest public is not entitled to severance físc and that Fairman See, as e.g., amendments are Colum pay under involved. (D.C. However, Gould, A.2d 56-57 arbitrator concluded. bia v. Columbia, on 2004); to severance based remains entitled Mamo District of (2007). However, validity of which in the A.2d 386-87 challenging. precluded District is now pre circumstances particular special The calculation of the severance due here, discretionary with the coupled sented agreement, under that which until be arguments new permitting nature of pay, peal prepared the District was for the first government made even par- If the appears straightforward. to be see, e.g., Colum appeal, time on District of amount, agree ties cannot dis- P’ship, bia v. Ltd. Wical pute may submitted for further arbitra- (D.C.1993), I in the ultimate concur on Accordingly, tion that issue. point the District at this conclusion vacating court order the arbitration award validity origi challenge affirmed, based the 1999 amendments is on join nal and I otherwise agreement, case is remanded to the trial court opinion of the court. proceedings for further with the consistent

opinion.

So ordered.

STEADMAN, Judge, concurring: Senior judicial

Principles equitable es-

toppel do not applicable private ‍‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‍parties readily the government

translate where

Case Details

Case Name: Fairman v. District of Columbia

Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Published: Oct 25, 2007

Citation: 934 A.2d 438

Docket Number: 02-CV-650

Court Abbreviation: D.C.