Remedies under the CMPA for Their Defamation-Plus Claims The plaintiffs’ claims alleging “defamation plus” are also amenable to resolution through the administrative rem edies provided by the CMPA. See Thompson, 593 A.2d at 629-636 (discussing how the CMPA grievance system supplants common-law tort remedies for claims of “wrongful treatment” cognizable under the remedial provisions of the CMPA). When tort claims are predicated upon conduct that may be a proper subject of a grievance under the CMPA, the exclusivity principles attendant to CMPA administrative remedies will “preclude litigation of ... [claims such as] emotional distress and defamation” prior to exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Thompson, 593 A.2d at 635; see also King v. Kidd, 640 A.2d 656, 663 (D.C.1993) (<HOLDING>). D.C. courts have not hesitated to dismiss
holding that federal employee cannot file for damages against supervisor for an unconstitutional adverse personnel action when congress has provided adequate administrative remedy holding that once the workers compensation act provides a remedy it is exclusive and the employee has no right to bring an action in commonlaw negligence against his employer holding that public policy claims are unavailable where the statute in question provides the employee with a wrongful discharge remedy holding that with few exceptions the cmpa is the exclusive remedy for a district of columbia public employee who has a workrelated complaint of any kind recognizing that the cmpa provides the exclusive remedy for a common law action  if the employee claims wrongful treatment or injury cognizable as a personnel issue under the acts performance ratings adverse actions and employee grievance provisions