Before Steadman, Ruiz and Washington, Associate Judges.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Steadman, Associate Judge
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(Hon. Judith E. Retchin, Trial Judge)
(Argued December 16, 1999 Decided March 30, 2000)
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.
Appellant's complaint contained the following factual allegations. On November 15, 1995, appellant, an employee of the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC), filed an internal complaint against his co-worker Charlene Smith, alleging sexual harassment. Apparently in retaliation, similar complaints were filed by Smith against Robinson in turn. In addition, Smith filed a criminal complaint against appellant in Prince George's County, Maryland. In direct response to the criminal charges filed against Robinson, his superiors transferred him from the DOC facility in Southeast Washington to the Lorton, Virginia, facility on November 29, 1995. An internal memo, detailing the charges against him and the reasons for his transfer, mistakenly received wide circulation at the Lorton facility. By January 1996, Robinson had been fully exonerated of any wrongdoing by the DOC. The Operations Commander at the DOC and an independent fact-finding committee found Smith's charges against appellant meritless and recommended Robinson's immediate return to the Southeast Washington facility. *fn1 Appellant was not transferred back to his original post, however, until May 1996. In August 1996, the criminal charges against Robinson were officially dropped when the Maryland State Attorney nolle prosequied the claim.
On November 28, 1998 appellant sued the District of Columbia, the Director of the DOC, the Executive Director of the DOC, the Deputy Director for Operations at the DOC, and the Deputy Director for Institutions at the DOC, as well as Smith. *fn2 The complaint alleged defamation, publication of private facts, false light, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. *fn3 The claims stemmed from Smith's false reports, DOC's improper publication of confidential documents, and the Department's failure to promptly act on the recommendations of its own fact-finding committee and officers. In the complaint, Robinson did not seek any direct relief for sexual harassment or discrimination from any of the defendants, including Smith.
Prior to trial on September 16, 1998, the trial court granted a renewed motion to dismiss as to the District. The court ruled that appellant's claims against the District were governed exclusively by the District's Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act, and thus had to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The case proceeded to a bench trial against Smith alone, and appellant was awarded $11,762.54 in damages. Appellant now appeals the dismissal of his claims against the District.
With few exceptions, the CMPA is the exclusive remedy for a District of Columbia public employee who has a work-related complaint of any kind. Stockard v. Moss, 706 A.2d 561, 564 (D.C. 1997). The Superior Court is not an "alternative forum" in this scheme, but rather serves as a "last resort" for reviewing decisions generated by CMPA procedures. *fn4 Id. at 565 (quoting District of Columbia v. Thompson, 593 A.2d 621, 634 (D.C. 1991)). We have noted several times the sweeping nature of this exemption as encompassing nearly all employee claims arising out of workplace activity. See, e.g., King v. Kidd, 640 A.2d 656, 663 (D.C. 1993); Thompson, supra, 593 A.2d at 634.
"Nonetheless, it remains the case that government employees only lose common law rights of recovery if the statute provides redress for the wrongs they assert." Newman v. District of Columbia, 518 A.2d 698, 704-05 (D.C. 1986). In this regard, the regulations pertaining to the CMPA expressly exclude from the employee grievance procedures any allegations within the jurisdiction of the D.C. Office of Human Rights. Kidd, supra, 640 A.2d at 664 (citing D.C. Personnel Regulations § 1632.1(o), 34 DCMR 1845, 1878 (1987)). As a result, an employee seeking relief for discrimination must pursue the remedies provided under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act rather than the CMPA. Stockard, supra, 706 A.2d at 567 n.12; Kidd, supra, 640 A.2d at 663 n.9. See also Williams v. District of Columbia, 467 A.2d 140 (1983).
We built on this concept in Kidd to fashion a narrow exception to the exclusivity provision of the CMPA for common-law claims that were "premised on, and fundamentally related to" a sexual harassment claim:
"[P]ublic employees do not lose their common law rights to sue for the[ir] injuries . . . [when] neither those injuries nor their consequences trigger" the exclusive provisions of the CMPA. Newman, [supra,] 518 A.2d at 705. Because there is no evidence that the Council of the District of Columbia intended to divest the Superior Court of its pre-existing jurisdiction to hear intentional infliction of emotional distress claims arising out of allegations of government workplace sexual harassment and subsequent retaliation, . . . the Superior Court had ...