Legal Opinion

Robinson v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided March 30, 2000No. 98-CV-1677PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEADMAN, Associate Judge:

Appellant Robinson, an employee of the District of Columbia government, seeks to sue the District for certain work-related common-law torts. In general, redress for such torts must be sought exclusively through the provisions of the District’s Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act (CMPA). D.C.Code §§ 1-601.1 et seq. (1999). Appellant argues that his claims are related to claims of sexual harassment and thus fall within the exception to this rule. We disagree and accordingly affirm the decision of the trial court dismissing appellant’s claims for want of jurisdiction.

I

Appe…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. King v. KiddDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. District of Columbia v. ThompsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Stockard v. MossDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. Newman v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. Williams v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Beeton v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. Bonaccorsy v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
  3. Howerton v. OgletreeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
  4. Holman v. WilliamsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
  5. Thompson v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005

48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API