District of Columbia
Judge dismisses gay D.C. cop’s bias lawsuit
Former officer claimed anti-gay harassment and retaliation
In a little-noticed development, a federal judge on Feb. 21 of this year dismissed a lawsuit filed in 2015 by gay former D.C. police officer Christopher Lilly accusing fellow officers and supervisors of subjecting him to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on his sexual orientation.
In a 65-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan explained why he approved a motion filed by the District of Columbia requesting a summary judgement decision dismissing the case based on the assertion that the lawsuit lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate that discrimination of any kind took place.
The motion was filed by attorneys with the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, who represented the District and the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., who were named as defendants in the lawsuit filed by Lilly.
Neither Lilly nor his attorney, Sameera Ali of the D.C. law firm Ali, White & Coleman, responded to a request by the Washington Blade seeking comment on the judge’s ruling.
Lilly charged in his lawsuit filed in May 2015 that between 2011 and 2013 he was subjected, among other things, to repeated anti-gay name-calling and other forms of harassment, including the placement of more than a dozen AIDS awareness stickers on his locker at the Fourth Police District, where he was stationed.
At the time he saw the AIDS stickers on his locker he also saw that someone wrote the word “fag” on the locker and poured a white liquid on the floor next to the locker simulating semen, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit says the discriminatory actions began shortly after December 2010 when “without plaintiff Lilly’s knowledge or consent, his sexual orientation, homosexual, was publicized maliciously and intentionally” at the Fourth District.
“Following plaintiff Lilly’s ‘outing,’ any other officer to come into contact with plaintiff Lilly subjected him to scrutiny, retaliation and ridicule by means of vulgar language, slandering his name and abilities to function as a police officer and questioning his abilities to serve due to his sexual orientation,” the lawsuit alleged.
The lawsuit, among other things, charged D.C., through the actions of police officials, with violating the D.C. Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, and violating Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, by discriminating against Lilly because of his gender and sexual orientation, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliating against him when he raised objections to the alleged discrimination.
In his ruling dismissing the case, Judge Sullivan points to arguments in the District’s answer to the lawsuit filed in 2020 and in the District’s motion calling for summary judgement, that Lilly failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations.
The judge also cited what he described as multiple undisputed facts presented by the AG Office attorneys showing that Lilly had faced disciplinary actions for breaching police rules, including not showing up for work or showing up late for his shift of duty.
Other allegations by the MPD against Lilly, which Judge Sullivan says were unrelated to his sexual orientation, involved the temporary revocation of his police powers in 2012 due to alleged emotional stress he faced from a work-related exposure to bedbugs, according to the judge’s account of court filings.
“A few days later, Mr. Lilly was referred by MPD officials for a Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation,” the judge states in his ruling.
“Gloria Morote, a licensed clinical psychologist, evaluated Mr. Lilly on October 10, 2012, and October 24, 2012, alongside MPD referral documents informing her that ‘following a period of good service, Officer Lilly’s performance and appearance began to deteriorate in August/September 2012,’ including ‘two major investigations for neglect of duty,’ ‘deterioration’ in his mental condition, and ‘marked nervousness and erratic behavior while on-duty after exposure to bedbugs,’” the judge wrote in his ruling.
Over the next several months, the judge’s ruling states, Lilly continued to get into trouble for being late for work and other breaches of police rules leading up to May 22, 2013, when “Mr. Lilly was placed on administrative leave after ‘rambling’ with ‘glassy’ eyes to a commanding officer about being sent by his family to a ‘funny farm,’” Judge Sullivan continues in is ruling.
“Then, on May 31, 2013, Mr. Lilly self-admitted into Dominion Hospital, a mental health facility in Virginia, to receive psychiatric treatment,” Sullivan states.
He reports in his ruling that based on Lilly’s record of infractions of police rules and his mental health status, the Police and Firefighters’ Retirement and Relief Board (PFRRB) “ordered Mr. Lilly’s retirement, determining that he was incapacitated from further duty by reason of a disability incurred in the performance of duty, and his retirement took effect on August 16, 2013.”
Court records show that under this forced retirement order Lilly would receive 40 percent of his salary as part of his retirement benefit.
“Drawing every justifiable inference in Mr. Lilly’s favor, as the Court must do, it finds no basis under Title VII or the D.C. Human Rights Act upon which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the District had discriminatory intent based on his gender and/or sexual orientation or was retaliating against him for taking part in a protected activity,” Sullivan concludes in his ruling. “Accordingly, the District’s Motion for Summary Judgement, EFC No. 45, is granted.”
The judge described his action as a “final appealable order,” which indicates that Lilly could appeal the ruling to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Lilly and his lawyer, Sameera Ali, couldn’t immediately be reached to determine whether Lilly plans to appeal the decision.
Shortly after Lilly’s lawsuit was filed, officials with the MPD and the Office of the Attorney General declined to comment, saying they could not discuss issues surrounding a pending lawsuit. But then Assistant D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham, who later became Chief of Police, told the Blade the department does not tolerate discrimination.
“I can’t talk about a specific lawsuit,” he said. “But I can tell you about how we don’t tolerate bias by any members of this police department,” said Newsham. “It’s something we take very seriously. And if we become aware of it, corrective action will be taken all the way up to removal if it was severe enough,” he said.
District of Columbia
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
Gay former corrections officer says harassment, discrimination began in 1993
Deon Jones says he is pleased with the outcome of his anti-gay bias lawsuit against the D.C. Department of Corrections that ended after five years on Feb. 5 with the D.C. government paying him $500,000 in a settlement payment.
The lawsuit, filed on his behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C. and the law international law firm WilmerHale, charged that Jones, a Department of Corrections sergeant, had been subjected to years of discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man in clear violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.
A statement released by the ACLU at the time the settlement was announced says Jones, “faced years of verbal abuse and harassment, from co-workers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment.”
The statement adds, “The prolonged mistreatment took a severe toll on Jones’s mental health, and he experienced depression, post-traumatic-stress disorder, and 15 anxiety attacks in 2021 alone.:
Jones said the harassment and mistreatment he encountered began in 1993, one year after he first began work at the Department of Corrections and continued for more than 25 years under six D.C. mayors, including current Mayor Muriel Bowser, who he says did not respond to his repeated pleas for help.
Each of those mayors, including Bowser, have been outspoken supporters of the LGBTQ community, but Jones says they did not intervene to change what he calls the homophobic “culture” at the Department of Corrections.
The Department of Corrections, through the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents city agencies against lawsuits, and the mayor’s office, have so far declined to comment on the lawsuit and the half million-dollar settlement the city offered to Jones, who accepted it.
Among other things, the settlement agreement states that Jones would be required to resign from his job at the Department of Corrections. It also declares that “neither the parties’ agreement nor the District government’s offer to settle the case shall in any way be construed as an admission by the District that it or any of its current or former employees, acted wrongfully with respect to plaintiff or any other person, or that plaintiff has any rights.”
Scott Michelman, the D.C. ACLU’s legal director said that type of disclaimer is typical for parties that agree to settle a lawsuit like this. He said the city’s action to pay Jones a half million-dollar settlement “speaks louder than words.”
With that as a backdrop, Jones reflected on the settlement and what he says was his tumultuous 30-year career as an employee at the D.C. Department of Corrections in a Feb. 9 interview with the Washington Blade.
He and Michelman pointed out that Jones was placed on paid administrative leave in April 2022, one year after his lawsuit was filed. Among his upcoming plans, Jones told the Blade, is to publish a podcast that, among other things, will highlight the hardship he faced at the Department of Corrections and advocate for LGBTQ rights.
BLADE: What are your thoughts on this lawsuit settlement which appears very much in your favor?
JONES: That’s great. I’m happy. I’m glad to resign. It’s been a long time coming. It was the worst time it’s ever been. And I have advocated for the community for many, many years. And not only standing up for my rights but for the rights for others in the LGBTQ community.
And I’m just tired now. And my podcast will start soon. And I will continue to advocate for the community.
BLADE: Can you tell a little about that and when it will begin?
JONES: Once in April, once everything is closed my podcast will be starting. And that’s Deon’s Chronicle and Reveal. Yes, my own podcast.
BLADE: Since we have reported your attorney saying you have been on administrative leave since March of 2022, some in the community might be interested in what you have been doing since that time. Did you get another job or were you just waiting for this case to be resolved?
JONES: I was waiting for this to be resolved. I couldn’t work. That would violate policy and procedures of the D.C. government. So, I could not get another job or anything else.
BLADE: You have said under administrative leave you were still getting paid. You were still able to live off of that?
JONES: Yes, I was able to. Yes, sir. I used to do a lot of overtime. As a zone lieutenant for many years, I have supervised over 250 officers. I’ve also supervised over 25,000 inmates in my 30 years.
BLADE: How many years have you been working for the Department of Corrections?
JONES: It’s 30 years all together. I started down at the Lorton facility. Six facilities — I’ve worked for past directors, deputy directors, internal affairs. I’ve done it all.
BLADE: Do you have any plans now other than doing the podcast?
JONES: Well, to just do my podcast and also to write my book and my memoir inside of the house of pain, the house of shame — what I’ve been through. When I start my podcast off it will be stories — Part 1 through Part 4. And I will go back to the Lorton days all the way up to now. When it first started was sexual harassment and discrimination back down at Lorton. And I mean this has just been the worst time around.
BLADE: So, did you first start your work at the Lorton Prison?
JONES: Yes, I was at the central facility, which was the program institution.
MICHELMAN: Just for context. You may remember this, but the Lorton facility was where D.C. incarcerated people were held. So, that was part of the D.C. Department of Corrections.
BLADE: Yes, and that was located in Lorton, Va., is that right?
JONES: Right.
BLADE: Didn’t that close and is the main incarceration facility is now in D.C. itself?
JONES: Yes. And that closed in 2001.
BLADE: I see. And is the main D.C. jail now at a site near the RFK Stadium site?
JONES: Yes, sir. And next-door is the correctional treatment facility as well.
BLADE: So, are you saying the harassment and other mistreatment against you began back when you were working at the Lorton facility?
JONES: At the Lorton central facility. And they used to flash me too. When I say flash me like the residents, the inmates were flashing. And they [the employees] were flashing.
BLADE: What do you mean by flashing?
JONES: They take their penis out and everything else. I mean the sexual harassment was terrible. And I came out then down there. And I continued to advocate for myself and to advocate for other people who I was told were being picked on as well.
BLADE: As best you can recall, where and what year did that happen?
JONES: That was back in 1993 in April of 1993.
BLADE: The mayor’s office has declined to comment on the settlement and payment the city is giving you. Yet they have always said they have a strong policy of nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people in D.C. government agencies. But do you think that was not carried out at the Department of Corrections?
JONES: That’s a blatant reason why — I had 13 anxiety attacks. It was so blatant. Can you imagine? On the airwaves or the walkie-talkies — everybody had a walkie talkie — the captains and the majors and everything. And you transmit it to the command center or something like that. When you finish someone gets on the air and calls you a sissy or a fag.
They received so many complaints, and I also sent the mayor so many emails and begging for help. And they ignored it. They didn’t address any complaints at all. So, that’s bull.
BLADE: But now after you filed your lawsuit and you received this settlement do you think there will be changes there to protect the rights of other LGBTQ employees?
JONES: I hope so, because I have been defending community rights. For many years I have been advocating for different things and different services. And I’ve seen the treatment. There are a lot of mistreatments towards the community over there. And I have taken a stance for a lot of people in the community and protecting their constitutional rights as well as mine.
BLADE: What advice might you have for what the Department of Corrections should do to correct the situation that led to your lawsuit?
JONES: Well, what my advice for the department is they need to go back over their training. And they need to enforce rules against any acts of discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment. They need to enforce that. They’re not enforcing that at all. They’re not doing it at all. And this time it was worse than ever, then I’ve ever seen it. That you would get on the walkie talkie and someone would call you a fag or a sissy or whatever else or do evil things and everything. They are not enforcing what they are preaching. They are not enforcing that.
BLADE: Is there any kind of concluding comment you may want to make?
JONES: Well, I hope that this litigation will be a wakeup call for the department. And also, that it will give someone else the motivation to stand up for their rights. I was blessed to have the ACLU and WilmerHale to protect my constitutional rights. So, I am just really happy. So, I’m hoping that others will stand up for their rights. Because a lot of people in the community that worked there, they were actually afraid. And I had some people who actually quit because of the pressure.
District of Columbia
U.S. Attorney’s Office drops hate crime charge in anti-gay assault
Case remains under investigation and ‘further charges’ could come
D.C. police announced on Feb. 9 that they had arrested two days earlier on Feb. 7 a Germantown, Md., man on a charge of simple assault with a hate crime designation after the man allegedly assaulted a gay man at 14th and Q Streets, N.W., while using “homophobic slurs.”
But D.C. Superior Court records show that prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C., which prosecutes D.C. violent crime cases, charged the arrested man only with simple assault without a hate crime designation.
In response to a request by the Washington Blade for the reason why the hate crime designation was dropped, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office provided this response: “We continue to investigate this matter and make no mistake: should the evidence call for further charges, we will not hesitate to charge them.”
In a statement announcing the arrest in this case, D.C. police stated, “On Saturday, February 7, 2026, at approximately 7:45 p.m. the victim and suspect were in the 1500 block of 14th Street, Northwest. The suspect requested a ‘high five’ from the victim. The victim declined and continued walking,” the statement says.
“The suspect assaulted the victim and used homophobic slurs,” the police statement continues. “The suspect was apprehended by responding officers.”
It adds that 26-year-old Dean Edmundson of Germantown, Md. “was arrested and charged with Simple Assault (Hate/Bias).” The statement also adds, “A designation as a hate crime by MPD does not mean that prosecutors will prosecute it as a hate crime.”
Under D.C.’s Bias Related Crime Act of 1989, penalties for crimes motivated by prejudice against individuals based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and homelessness can be enhanced by a court upon conviction by one and a half times greater than the penalty of the underlying crime.
Prosecutors in the past both in D.C. and other states have said they sometimes decide not to include a hate crime designation in assault cases if they don’t think the evidence is sufficient to obtain a conviction by a jury. In some instances, prosecutors have said they were concerned that a skeptical jury might decide to find a defendant not guilty of the underlying assault charge if they did not believe a motive of hate was involved.
A more detailed arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in Superior Court appears to support the charge of a hate crime designation.
“The victim stated that they refused to High-Five Defendant Edmondson, which, upon that happening, Defendant Edmondson started walking behind both the victim and witness, calling the victim, “bald, ugly, and gay,” the arrest affidavit states.
“The victim stated that upon being called that, Defendant Edmundson pushed the victim with both hands, shoving them, causing the victim to feel the force of the push,” the affidavit continues. “The victim stated that they felt offended and that they were also gay,” it says.
District of Columbia
Capital Pride wins anti-stalking order against local activist
Darren Pasha claims action is linked to his criticism of Pride organizers
A D.C. Superior Court judge on Feb. 6 partially approved an anti-stalking order against a local LGBTQ activist requested last October by the Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events.
The ruling by Judge Robert D. Okun requires Darren Pasha to stay at least 100 feet away from Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers until the time of a follow up court hearing he scheduled for April 17.
In his ruling at the Feb. 6 hearing, which was virtual rather than held in-person at the courthouse, Okun said he had changed the distance that Capital Pride had requested for the stay-away, anti-stalking order from 200 yards to 100 feet. The court records show that the judge also denied a motion filed earlier by Pasha, who did not attend the hearing, to “quash” the Capital Pride civil case against him.
Pasha told the Washington Blade he suffered an injury and damaged his mobile phone by falling off his scooter on the city’s snow-covered streets that prevented him from calling in to join the Feb. 6 court hearing.
In his own court filings without retaining an attorney, Pasha has strongly denied the stalking related allegations against him by Capital Pride, saying “no credible or admissible evidence has been provided” to show he engaged in any wrongdoing.
The Capital Pride complaint initially filed in court on Oct. 27, 2025, includes an 18-page legal brief outlining its allegations against Pasha and an additional 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by witnesses whose names are blacked out.
“Over the past year, Defendant Darren Pasha (“DSP”) has engaged in a sustained, and escalating course of conduct directed at CPA, including repeated and unwanted contact, harassment, intimidation, threats, manipulation, and coercive behavior targeting CPA staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates,” the Capital Pride complaint states.
In his initial 16-page response to the complaint, Pasha says the Capital Pride complaint appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with the organization and its then president, Ashley Smith, last year.
“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” he said of the complaint.
Smith, who has since resigned from his role as board president, did not respond to a request by the Blade for comment at the time the Capital Pride court complaint was filed against Pasha.
Capital Pride Executive Director Ryan Bos and the attorney representing the group in its legal action against Pasha, Nick Harrison, did not immediately respond to a Blade request for comment on the judge’s Feb. 6 ruling.
European Parliament resolution backs ‘full recognition of trans women as women’
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
Home is where the heart is
‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
Magic is happening for Round House’s out stage manager
McPike wins special election for Va. House of Delegates
Shooter who killed 7 people inside Canada school was transgender
Just when you think Trump can’t sink any lower, he does
Russia’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown takes absurd turn
