Wrongful Termination in DC

Wrongful Termination in DC: The Limits of “At Will”

Being fired unfairly and being fired unlawfully are not the same thing — but in Washington, DC, the gap between them is narrower than almost anywhere else. DC layers three kinds of protection over at-will employment: broad statutes, a court-made public-policy exception, and strong anti-retaliation rules. This page explains when a DC firing crosses the legal line. For the general framework, see our Retaliation and Wrongful Termination overview.

Route One: A Firing That Violates a Statute

Most successful wrongful-termination claims are statutory. If you were fired because of a protected trait, the DC Human Rights Act — which covers employers of any size and allows uncapped damages — is usually the strongest vehicle. If you were fired for complaining, the anti-retaliation provisions described on our Workplace Retaliation page apply. If you were fired for reporting wrongdoing, DC’s whistleblower protections — including specific statutes for DC government employees and contractors — are covered on our Whistleblower Protection pages.

Route Two: The Public-Policy Exception

Even where no statute speaks directly, DC courts will not enforce at-will employment to its logical extreme. The foundational case is Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co. (D.C. 1991), where a delivery driver was fired for refusing to drive a truck without a required inspection sticker — that is, for refusing to break the law. The Court of Appeals held that firing an employee for that reason is a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, at-will doctrine notwithstanding.

Six years later, in Carl v. Children’s Hospital (D.C. 1997) (en banc), the court made clear that Adams was a floor, not a ceiling: the exception can rest on public policy “firmly anchored” in the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation — in Carl itself, a nurse alleged she was fired for testifying before the DC Council and for patient-safety advocacy. The claim still requires a close fit between a clear public policy and the reason for the firing; courts reject attempts to turn every unfair termination into a tort. But the recognized core is solid: refusing to violate the law, exercising a clear legal right, and performing a civic duty.

What a DC Public-Policy Claim Requires

  • A clear public policy, anchored in a statute, regulation, or constitutional provision — not just a general sense of unfairness.
  • A firing (or, sometimes, a constructive discharge — see below) whose reason strikes at that policy: you refused to break the law, reported a violation, exercised a protected right.
  • No adequate statutory remedy already occupying the field — where a statute like the DCHRA provides its own cause of action, courts channel the claim there rather than duplicating it in tort.
One practical note: because the tort is a court claim, it follows DC’s civil limitations periods rather than agency charge deadlines — but do not let that lull you. If your facts also support DCHRA or retaliation claims (they usually do), those clocks — one year with OHR, two years in court — run regardless.

If You Resigned Rather Than Waited to Be Fired

DC law can treat a forced resignation as a firing, but the standard is demanding. See our Constructive Discharge page before assuming a resignation ended your claims — and ideally before resigning at all.

What Compensation Can You Recover?

A successful statutory claim under the DCHRA carries back pay, reinstatement or front pay, uncapped compensatory damages, punitive damages against private employers, and attorney’s fees. The public-policy tort carries ordinary tort damages, including emotional distress and, in egregious cases, punitive damages. Which route is stronger depends on the facts — often both are pled together.

Frequently Asked Questions

Not by itself — DC is an at-will jurisdiction, and unfairness alone is not a claim. But the gap between unfair and unlawful is narrower in the District than almost anywhere: a firing driven by a protected trait, by your complaint, by your report of wrongdoing, or by your refusal to break the law crosses the line. The real question is the reason behind the firing, spoken or unspoken.

A court-made claim for firings that strike at a clear public policy even when no statute directly applies — anchored by Adams (fired for refusing to break the law) and broadened by Carl (public policy “firmly anchored” in the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation). Its core: refusing to violate the law, exercising a clear legal right, performing a civic duty. It is not a catch-all for every harsh termination.

DCHRA claims allow one year with the Office of Human Rights or two years going straight to court; the public-policy tort follows DC’s ordinary civil limitations periods. Federal employees are different entirely — 45 days to contact an EEO counselor. Because most fact patterns support several routes with different clocks, the safe assumption is that the shortest one is already running.

Bottom Line

DC gives fired employees more routes than almost any jurisdiction: the nation’s broadest human-rights statute, a real public-policy tort, and layered anti-retaliation protections. The craft is in choosing and combining them — and in moving before the one-year OHR window closes. If the reason for your firing was one the law does not allow, have the routes mapped now.

Were You Wrongfully Terminated in Washington, DC?

If you were fired for exercising a legal right, reporting wrongdoing, or refusing to violate the law, you may have a wrongful termination claim. Wilkenfeld Law Office can evaluate your circumstances, explain your protections under DC law, and help you understand your legal options before important deadlines expire.
Schedule a consultation

Or call 301.245.3035 · Intake@WilkenfeldLO.com

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Reviewed by Ari Wilkenfeld, Esq. (DC Bar No. 461063; MD Bar No. 9806240300). Ari has over 27 years of experience litigating in federal and state courts, and before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and various arbitration panels. Ari has been recognized by Esquire Magazine as “a famously determined Civil Rights lawyer” and by the New York Post as “a high powered DC Lawyer.” Last updated: November 1, 2026.
Scroll to Top