is expressly made subject to “management’s reasonable discretion,” Ex. A at 6, and the word “encourages” is permissive, not mandatory language. The D.C. Court of Appeals has found that the use of such permissive language in a personnel manual is, as a matter of law, insufficient to create contractual rights. Perkins v. Dist. Gov’t Employees Fed. Credit Union, 653 A.2d 842, 843 (D.C.1995) (determining that language stating that employer “in [its] discretion ... may” take certain actions was insufficient to conclude that the parties intended to create a contract). The cited provisions cannot be considered to be “rationally at odds” with the Handbook’s disclaimer of contractual intent. See Hopkins v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, No. 10-900, 2010 WL 5300536, at 4 (D.D.C.2010) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, under District of Columbia law,
holding similar language to be a valid disclaimer holding that a standard form disclaimer for negligence of thirdparty tour operators which appeared on plaintiffs cruise ticket was valid as a disclaimer holding that the language in the lease agreement for computer accounting programs was an effective disclaimer of an implied warranty but for language in a statement of installation conditions which document created a genuine issue of material fact as to disclaimer holding inconspicuous written disclaimer to be unenforceable absent actual knowledge of the disclaimer holding that compensation and performance guidelines were not rationally at odds with handbooks disclaimer language