a requirement to exhaust state administrative remedies, federalism and comity considerations arise, tilting the scales further in favor of requiring exhaustion. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 530, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977); Johnson, 368 F.Supp.2d at 43. The plaintiffs were employees of the District of Columbia subject to the provisions of the CMPA. D.C.Code §§ 1-601.1 et seq. A principal purpose of the CMPA is to “assure that the District of Columbia government shall have a modern flexible system of public personnel administration, which shall .... [establish impartial and comprehensive administrative or negotiated procedures for resolving employee grievances.” Id. § 1 — 601.2(a)(5); cf. Robinson v. Dist. of Columbia, 748 A.2d 409, 411 (D.C.2000) (<HOLDING>). The CMPA provides that “[a]n appeal from a
holding that district court may order hearing as remedy for termination of public employee without due process 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 holding that all employee actions against employers for workrelated injuries based on any degree of negligence are within exclusive coverage of workers compensation law and may not be maintained under common law holding a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is not available where the employee has an existing statutory remedy