Opinion ID: 1908530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Avoidance of altering vested contract or property rights.

Text: In conjunction with the reliance factor, courts also weigh the probable effect of a law change on the vested property or contract rights of the parties. Mendes, supra, 389 A.2d at 790. Guest Services has cited no authority, however, and we know of none, for the proposition that it had a vested right to discharge Ms. Washington. [13] As we have demonstrated in our discussion of Mendes' reliance prong, Guest Services' assertion that the dismissal of Ms. Washington was lawful was cast in doubt by readily discernable uncertainty as to the future course of a developing area of the law. Guest Services may have had a subjective expectation that no further exception to the at-will doctrine would become applicable to Guest Services' conduct. Such an expectation may even have stemmed from a plausible predictive assessment of how the law would develop in the District of Columbia. Plausibility is not enough, however, to create the kind of vested right that a court should take care not to impair. The application of Carl II to this appeal will not deprive Guest Services of any legally cognizable vested right.