here, in light of the plaintiffs failure to address the defendants’ arguments as to these claims, the Court considers the dismissal of these claims conceded, and grants the defendants summary judgment on Counts III and TV of the complaint. However, even if the plaintiff had not conceded Counts III and IV, those counts would still be barred for the reason that follows. The plaintiff alleges that his termination was “without just cause or provocation, contrary to the clear mandate of public policy set forth by the ADA and the DCHRA.” Compl. ¶¶32, 34. Although the District of Columbia Court of Appeals recognizes the tort of wrongful termination, it is limited to narrowly defined exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine, see Carl v. Children’s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159, 160 (D.C.1997) (<HOLDING>), which permits an employer to “discharge an
recognizing exception to atwill employment doctrine where employee is terminated by employer for refusing to violate municipal regulation recognizing narrow whistleblower exception to the atwill doctrine recognizing public policy exception to atwill doctrine recognizing three exceptions to atwill doctrine recognizing doctrine