With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". activity promoting public policy. In light of our determination that Community Alternatives was properly granted judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that Ms. Quarles and Ms. Byrd’s challenge to the denial of their motion to add its parent company as a defendant to their suit is moot. See Thorn v. Walker, 912 A.2d 1192, 1195 (D.C.2006) (noting that an issue becomes moot when there is no cognizable interest in the outcome). Similarly, we decline to reach Ms. Byrd’s argument that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence in support of her common law claim — namely that her supervisor had knowledge that she was engaging in activities furthering the public policy of protecting the home’s residents. Even assuming this were true, this knowledge alone would not have -1003 (D.C.1998) (<HOLDING>). 6 . On appeal, Community Alternatives argues

A: holding that plaintiff director of security for a hospital had sufficiently pled requisite public policy and a close fit where he asserted that a hospital fired him for reporting to law enforcement that a hospital administrator bribed a public official
B: holding that a jury could find employers proffered reason for termination pretext when plaintiff presented evidence that she had not violated company policy or was authorized to deviate from stated policy and employer never discussed alleged violations with her
C: holding that plaintiff cook at a nursing home had sufficiently pled requisite public policy and a close fit where she alleged she was fired for expressing concerns that a fellow employee was contaminating the area where she was preparing food
D: holding that plaintiff had sufficiently pled requisite public policy and a close fit where he alleged that his company had fired him after he filed a statutorily authorized lawsuit meant to protect employees against employers who illegally deducted money from their paychecks
D.