A D.C. federal judge dismissed a former WMATA employee's wrongful termination claim, finding the transit agency was not immune from the suit but that the worker did not fit D.C.'s narrow public-policy exception for at-will employees.
What happened
A District of Columbia federal judge has thrown out former Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority employee Rainie Carter's lawsuit alleging she was fired for reporting an unauthorized firearm near her office space, ruling that her common-law wrongful termination theory could not survive even though WMATA failed to establish sovereign immunity.
U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper said Carter alleged that she saw two unidentified men near her work area at WMATA's L'Enfant Plaza headquarters, one of whom placed a silver handgun with a brown handle on a filing cabinet in plain view. Carter said she reported the incident internally, that an investigator confirmed her account using surveillance footage, and that WMATA officials commended her for following the agency's see-something-say-something policy.
Carter, who was hired in April 2025 as an employee relations specialist, alleged she was terminated about three weeks after reporting the firearm. She initially brought claims under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act and D.C. common law, but later voluntarily dismissed the statutory claim, leaving only wrongful termination for the court to resolve.
The court first rejected WMATA's bid to end the case on sovereign-immunity grounds. Although WMATA argued that firing decisions are discretionary employment actions, Judge Cooper said the agency did not adequately support its assertion that Carter was fired for poor performance rather than retaliation. The judge faulted WMATA's exhibit as incomplete and thinly explained, writing that the documentation was "not sufficient evidence of a “legitimate, non-retaliatory reason[]” for her termination."
But that jurisdictional win did not save Carter's case. The court held that D.C.'s public-policy exception to at-will employment is narrow and did not apply because Carter's theory centered on alleged illegal conduct by unidentified third parties, not by WMATA or its personnel. Carter did not allege that WMATA aided the alleged firearm violation, and the opinion noted that WMATA officials allegedly responded by investigating and praising her vigilance.
Because Carter had not tied her firing to a public policy that barred WMATA's own conduct, the court granted WMATA's motion to dismiss. Judge Cooper closed with a transit-themed line: Carter's claim "fails to leave the station."