With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". dismissing federal claims in cases in which a D.C. employee requests punitive damages. See, e.g., McManus v. Dist. of Columbia, 530 F.Supp.2d 46 (D.D.C.2007) (Judge Kollar-Kotelly) (affirming jurisdiction over D.C. employees’ federal due process claims alleging that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive them of administrative relief in connection with employment benefits because prayer for relief included punitive damages); Am. Fed. of Gov’t Employees v. Dist. of Columbia, 2005 WL 1017877, at *5 (D.D.C. May 2, 2005) (Judge Bates) (affirming jurisdiction over public union’s First Amendment claim regarding change in leave policy of D.C. Fire Department restricting access to public officials); Crockett v. D.C. Metro. Police Dep’t, 293 F.Supp.2d 63, 67 (D.D.C.2003) (Judge Leon) (<HOLDING>). Others have interpreted it narrowly, as the

A: holding that because crockett has requested  punitive damages that the oea is not authorized to grant under the cmpa  the administrative forum  could not have provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the plaintiffs federal claims
B: holding that exhaustion is not required for plaintiffs seeking money damages because damages are unavailable through the administrative process and because all other relief available to the plaintiffs under the idea had already been provided through a settlement agreement
C: holding that punitive damages could not be granted because punitive damages are a matter of substantive law and substantive state law  must yield to federal limitations
D: holding that plaintiff could recover both treble damages under state racketeering statute and punitive damages under fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims because the statute provided that actions brought under it are remedial and not punitive and that civil remedies provided under it are supplemental and not mutually exclusive
A.