Wrongful Termination in D.C. (2026): Laws, Deadlines, How to File

The District of Columbia follows employment at will, so a firing is wrongful only when it breaks a specific law or a narrow exception recognized by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The main law is the D.C. Human Rights Act, under which D.C. Code 2-1402.11(a) makes it unlawful to discharge someone because of an actual or perceived protected trait. It covers any employer with even one employee, and its list of protected traits includes personal appearance, family responsibilities, political affiliation, credit information and homeless status.

You may file with the D.C. Office of Human Rights within 1 year, or sue directly in court within 2 years, the court deadline that has applied since October 1, 2025. To compare other states, see our guide to wrongful termination laws by state.

Information last verified on October 10, 2026. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers District of Columbia law on firing employees: the D.C. Human Rights Act (D.C. Code 2-1401.01 et seq.) as amended by the Fairness in Human Rights Administration Amendment Act of 2024, the public-policy exception recognized by the D.C. Court of Appeals, implied contracts, and D.C. statutes on workers' compensation, jury service, wage complaints, sick and safe leave, family and medical leave, paid family leave and false-claims whistleblowing, with short notes on the federal laws that also apply. The federal rules in full are on our wrongful termination laws by state guide. It does not cover severance agreements; see District of Columbia severance pay laws.

Is D.C. an at-will jurisdiction?

Yes. In Strass v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic, 744 A.2d 1000 (D.C. 2000), the D.C. Court of Appeals described a "well-settled presumption in this jurisdiction" that "a hiring not accompanied by an expression of a specific term of duration creates an employment relationship terminable at will." Our research did not locate a general D.C. statute requiring good cause for a firing. For how the doctrine works day to day, see District of Columbia at-will employment laws.

Grounds for a wrongful termination claim in D.C.

Discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act

D.C. Code 2-1402.11(a) bars an employer from discharging someone because of the individual's actual or perceived:

• race, color, religion or national origin;
• sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
• age, marital status, personal appearance or family responsibilities;
• genetic information or disability;
• matriculation or political affiliation;
• status as a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence, a sexual offense or stalking;
• credit information or homeless status.

Pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and reproductive health decisions are covered by 2-1402.11(a)(1)(B). The Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act also bars adverse action against an employee for requesting or using a pregnancy accommodation, or for absence caused by a pregnancy-related condition (D.C. Code 32-1231.03), enforceable through an OHR complaint or a civil action (32-1231.07, 32-1231.09).

Who is covered. Under 2-1401.02(10), an "employer" is any person who, for compensation, employs an individual, except that the employer's own parent, spouse or children working in the employer's household are excluded; it also covers any person acting in the employer's interest. There is no minimum headcount beyond one employee. Federal Title VII and the ADA, by contrast, apply to employers with 15 or more employees, and the federal age law to employers with 20 or more (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b); 42 U.S.C. 12111(5); 29 U.S.C. 630(b)).

Retaliation. Retaliating against, or interfering with, someone for exercising rights under the Act is a separate unlawful practice (2-1402.61).

Firing in violation of public policy (Adams and Carl)

In Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991), the D.C. Court of Appeals recognized "a very narrow exception to the at-will doctrine under which a discharged at-will employee may sue his or her former employer for wrongful discharge when the sole reason for the discharge is the employee's refusal to violate the law, as expressed in a statute or municipal regulation." The court treated the claim as a tort and said damages "may include compensation for any emotional distress or mental anguish resulting from the discharge."

In Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997) (en banc), the court held that the Adams exception "should not be read in a manner that makes it impossible to recognize any additional public policy exceptions." It reversed the dismissal of a claim by an employee fired for testifying before the D.C. Council, where the policy came from D.C. Code 1-224 protecting testimony before the Council. Later cases apply the standard from Judge Terry's concurrence in Carl: in Fingerhut v. Children's National Medical Center, 738 A.2d 799 (D.C. 1999), the court described it as the view of "A majority in Carl," under which new exceptions are addressed "only on a case-by-case basis" and must rest on a clear public policy "officially declared" in a statute, municipal regulation or the Constitution.

Deadline. No D.C. statute sets a deadline for this claim specifically. D.C. Code 12-301(8) sets 3 years for actions with no other prescribed limit, but our research did not find a case confirming that courts apply it to Adams claims. Get legal advice promptly.

Implied contracts and employee handbooks (Strass)

The court in Strass wrote that "The terms of an employer's personnel or policy manual may be sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether the manual creates contractual rights for the employee." It also wrote that "employers can effectively disclaim any implied contractual obligation arising from such provisions," though a disclaimer is not always adequate. Whether a handbook changed your at-will status depends on its wording and any disclaimer. D.C. Code 12-301(7) sets 3 years for simple contracts, express or implied.

Good faith and fair dealing. In Paul v. Howard University, 754 A.2d 297 (D.C. 2000), the court said that "all contracts contain an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing," but that such a claim "cannot be made by an at-will employee because there is no contract to provide a basis for the covenant."

Workers' compensation retaliation (D.C. Code 32-1542)

It is unlawful to discharge or discriminate against an employee because the employee "has claimed or attempted to claim compensation" or testified in a proceeding. The remedy is restoration to employment and compensation for lost wages, and the Mayor sets a penalty of $100 to $1,000. The section does not state a filing deadline, so act promptly. For the benefits side, see District of Columbia workers' compensation laws.

Jury service (D.C. Code 11-1913)

An employer may not deprive an employee of employment, or threaten or coerce the employee, because the employee receives or responds to a jury summons, serves, or attends court for prospective jury service. The employee may sue "within 9 months of such discharge" for lost wages, reinstatement and damages, and a prevailing employee recovers reasonable attorney fees. The employer is also subject to criminal contempt, with a first offense punishable by a fine of up to $300 or up to 30 days.

Wage and minimum wage complaints (D.C. Code 32-1311)

It is unlawful to discharge, threaten, penalize or retaliate against an employee who made a good-faith complaint, started or is about to start a proceeding, gave information, or testified. If the adverse action comes within 90 days of the protected activity, retaliation is presumed, and the employer can rebut that only by clear and convincing evidence. In a civil action, remedies include a civil penalty of $1,000 to $10,000, liquidated damages equal to the penalty, lost compensation, front pay, reinstatement, injunctions, costs and attorneys' fees; an administrative complaint before an administrative law judge is the alternative. Our research did not read the deadline for these claims.

Sick and safe leave (D.C. Code 32-531.08)

An employer may not discharge or discriminate against an employee for using paid sick and safe leave, opposing a violation, complaining to the employer or the Department of Employment Services, filing a complaint, informing others of their rights, or cooperating in an investigation. A civil or administrative complaint must be filed within 3 years of the event or the final event in a series, and the period is tolled while the employer fails to post the required notice (32-531.10a). Remedies include $500 in additional damages for each accrued day of leave denied and, in willful cases, civil penalties (32-531.12).

Family and medical leave (D.C. Code 32-507 and 32-541.08)

The D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act makes it unlawful to interfere with leave rights or to discharge or discriminate against someone who opposes a violation, files a charge or testifies (32-507). The D.C. FMLA applies to employers with 20 or more employees in D.C. (32-516). An administrative complaint must be filed "within 1 year of the occurrence or discovery of the alleged violation" (32-509(a)), or the employee may sue in court within the same 1 year, which is paused while a claim is pending administrative review (32-510).

Complaints under D.C.'s Universal Paid Leave program, other than disputes over benefit claims, also must be filed within one year of the occurrence or discovery of the violation, and enforcement follows the D.C. FMLA (32-541.08(d)-(e)).

Tobacco use (D.C. Code 7-1703.03)

An employer may not fire someone for using tobacco, apart from workplace smoking restrictions and bona fide occupational qualifications. The employee may sue for damages including back pay, but must first use up any union grievance procedure or other established means of resolving employer-employee disputes.

Whistleblowing (D.C. Code 2-223.02 and 2-381.04)

D.C. has no whistleblower statute for private employers generally, but D.C. Code 2-223.02 protects employees of a company performing a contract with the District government (while working on that contract), employees of District instrumentalities, and security officers employed by security firms, who make a protected disclosure or refuse to follow an illegal order. They may sue in Superior Court for reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, costs and attorney fees, but must file within 3 years of the violation or within 1 year after first becoming aware of it, whichever comes first (2-223.03(a)). District government employees have a parallel law with the same deadline (1-615.54(a)(2)). The D.C. False Claims Act protects employees, contractors and agents who are fired, demoted, suspended, threatened or harassed because of lawful acts in furtherance of a false-claims action or other efforts to stop a violation (2-381.04(a)). The remedies are reinstatement with seniority, two times back pay, interest, and special damages including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees (2-381.04(b)). The suit must be filed in Superior Court no more than 3 years after the retaliation (2-381.04(c)).

The retaliation clauses in the wage, sick leave, family leave and workers' compensation laws above also protect employees who report violations of those laws.

Our research did not cover D.C. rules on voting leave or military leave beyond federal USERRA, nor a D.C. test for constructive discharge (quitting because conditions became intolerable). D.C. Law 24-190 (2022) created cannabis employment protections, but the D.C. Code lists them as "Not Funded" and says the law "has not been implemented" (D.C. Code 32-951.02); it lists the Human Rights Act subsection on medical marijuana the same way (2-1402.11(b-1)). Check with OHR before relying on either.

Wrongful termination deadlines in D.C.

The EEOC deadline in D.C. The EEOC's Washington Field Office says an individual has 300 days from the date of alleged harm to file a charge against a D.C. employer with 15 or more employees, and 300 days for age discrimination against an employer with 20 or more. The exceptions are charges against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the DC Courts and foreign embassies or consulates, which must be filed within 180 days. For smaller employers, the office directs charges to the appropriate state or local agency; in D.C., the Human Rights Act sets 1 year for an OHR complaint (2-1403.04(a)).

Where to file in D.C.

• Discrimination and retaliation under the Human Rights Act: the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR), 441 4th Street NW, Suite 570N, (202) 727-4559, ohr@dc.gov. OHR's page says to submit an intake questionnaire within one year of the discriminatory act. D.C. government employees must first consult an EEO counselor within 180 calendar days and then submit the intake questionnaire within 15 days of the counselor's exit letter, according to the OHR page.
• Or directly in court: a Human Rights Act claim may be filed in court without going to OHR first (2-1403.16(a)).
• Federal claims: the EEOC, through the EEOC Public Portal or by phone at 1-800-669-4000 when a deadline is near.
• D.C. FMLA and paid leave complaints: through the administrative processes in 32-509 and 32-541.08. Sick and safe leave complaints may be civil or administrative (32-531.10a).
• False Claims Act retaliation: Superior Court.

Choosing between OHR and court

You do not have to file with OHR before suing (2-1403.16(a)), but you cannot pursue the same complaint in both places: a person who sues cannot also file it with OHR (2-1403.16(e)). Every OHR complaint is mediated before a full investigation, and the parties get up to 45 days (2-1403.04(c)).

If you start at OHR, you keep the right to go to court if you withdraw before the investigation ends, or if OHR dismisses for lack of jurisdiction, no probable cause or administrative convenience (2-1403.16(c)). After a probable-cause finding, you can still go to court only by filing a written notice of withdrawal on or before the 30th day after discovery closes before the Commission or a hearing examiner (2-1403.16(d)). In those situations OHR must serve a notice of right to file a civil action (2-1403.06a), and you then have 90 days from service or the rest of the 2-year period, whichever is longer.

What a court can award in D.C.

In a Human Rights Act case, "The court may grant any relief it deems appropriate" (2-1403.16(f)). Punitive damages are available: in Daka, Inc. v. Breiner, 711 A.2d 86 (D.C. 1998), the D.C. Court of Appeals quoted its earlier holding in Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland (1993) "that punitive damages are available in civil actions under the DCHRA." Our research did not find a cap on compensatory or punitive damages in 2-1403.16 or 2-1403.13.

When a case is decided by the D.C. Commission on Human Rights instead of a court, the Commission may order the employer to stop the practice, hire or reinstate the employee with or without back pay, and pay compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs (2-1403.13(a)(1)). It may also impose civil penalties paid to the District's General Fund: up to $10,000 with no prior violation, $25,000 with one prior violation in 5 years, and $50,000 with two or more in 7 years.

For comparison, federal Title VII and ADA claims cap combined compensatory and punitive damages at $50,000 to $300,000 depending on employer size (42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3)). The wrongful termination guide lists the tiers.

Recent change: 2 years to sue under the Human Rights Act

The Fairness in Human Rights Administration Amendment Act of 2024 (D.C. Law 25-300) gave complainants 2 years, instead of 1 year, to file a Human Rights Act claim in court; the deadline to file with OHR remains 1 year. The law was passed subject to appropriations, and OHR's fact sheet says the office "began enforcing the new provisions of the Fairness Act on October 1, 2025, after funding was approved." The law also added the notice of right to file a civil action and more points at which a complainant can leave OHR for court. Our research did not establish how the 2-year period applies to acts that occurred before October 1, 2025, so ask OHR or a lawyer if your firing predates it.

Personnel files and termination letters

Our research did not locate a D.C. statute requiring an employer to give a written reason for a firing, and it did not cover whether D.C. law gives employees access to their personnel files.

Practical steps after a firing in D.C.

Write down the date you were fired, who told you, the reason given, and any complaint, leave request, injury claim or jury summons involved, and keep any offer letter, handbook or disclaimer you signed. The deadlines to watch are 1 year for an OHR complaint and 9 months for a jury-service claim. For your last wages, see District of Columbia final paycheck laws.

If the employer offers money for a release, read it before signing: a release can give up the claims described here. Our District of Columbia severance pay laws page covers those agreements, and the wrongful termination guide has more on preparing for a claim.

Related

• Wrongful termination laws by state
• District of Columbia at-will employment laws
• District of Columbia workers' compensation laws
• District of Columbia final paycheck laws
• District of Columbia severance pay laws

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about District of Columbia wrongful termination law (the D.C. Human Rights Act as amended by D.C. Law 25-300, the Adams and Carl public-policy exception, and D.C. Code 32-1542, 11-1913, 32-1311, 32-531.08, 32-507, 32-541.08 and 2-381.04) and the federal laws that apply in D.C. It is not legal advice. The information was verified on October 10, 2026. For advice about your situation, contact the D.C. Office of Human Rights, the EEOC, a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in the District of Columbia.

Last updated: October 10, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue for wrongful termination in D.C.?

Only when the firing broke a specific law or a narrow exception, such as the D.C. Human Rights Act (D.C. Code 2-1402.11), a retaliation statute like 2-381.04 or 11-1913, an implied contract, or the public-policy exception in Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co. (1991).

How long do I have to file a discrimination complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights?

1 year from the discriminatory act or its discovery (D.C. Code 2-1403.04(a)).

How long do I have to sue under the D.C. Human Rights Act?

2 years from the act or its discovery, the court deadline OHR has enforced since October 1, 2025 (D.C. Code 2-1403.16(b)); a timely OHR complaint pauses that clock until OHR serves a notice of right to file a civil action.

Do I have to file with OHR before going to court in D.C.?

No. D.C. Code 2-1403.16(a) lets you sue directly, but a person who sues cannot also file the same complaint with OHR (2-1403.16(e)).

Does the D.C. Human Rights Act cover small employers?

Yes. Under D.C. Code 2-1401.02(10), an employer is any person who employs an individual for compensation, except that the employer's own parent, spouse or children working in the employer's household are excluded.

What is the EEOC deadline in D.C.?

The EEOC Washington Field Office says 300 days from the date of alleged harm for employers with 15 or more employees (20 or more for age), but 180 days for charges against WMATA, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the DC Courts and foreign embassies or consulates.

Can I get punitive damages for discrimination in D.C.?

The D.C. Court of Appeals in Daka, Inc. v. Breiner (1998) quoted its holding in Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland that punitive damages are available in civil actions under the Human Rights Act, and our research found no statutory cap.