Connect with us

District of Columbia

Judge dismisses gay D.C. cop’s bias lawsuit

Former officer claimed anti-gay harassment and retaliation

Published

on

Former D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham told the Blade at the time the lawsuit was filed that the MPD does not tolerate discrimination. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case

Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive

Published

on

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade photo by Lou Chibbaro, Jr.)

A D.C. Superior Court judge on April 30 reinstated an anti-stalking order requested by the Capital Pride Alliance against local gay activist Darren Pasha based on allegations that Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk the organization’s staff, board members, and volunteers.

The reinstated order by Judge Robert D. Okun followed an April 17 court hearing in which he rescinded a similar order he initially approved in February on grounds that more evidence was needed to substantiate the need for the order.   

At the time he rescinded the earlier order he scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 29 at which three Capital Pride staff members testified in support of the anti-stalking order. But Okun discontinued the hearing after Pasha, who was representing himself without an attorney, announced he was willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.

The judge said Pasha’s decision to accept a restraining order made it no longer necessary to continue the evidentiary hearing. He then asked Capital Pride and Pasha to submit their suggested revisions for the order which they submitted a short time later.

The case began when Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a civil complaint on Oct. 27, 2025, against Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers. It includes a 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by unidentified witnesses.

Pasha, who has represented himself without an attorney, has argued in multiple court filings and motions that the stalking allegations are untrue. In his initial court response to the complaint, he said it appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith, who has since resigned from the board.

Similar to his earlier anti-stalking order against Pasha, Okun’s reissued order on April 30 states, a “Temporary Anti-Stalking Order is GRANTED, effective immediately and remaining in effect until further order of the Court or final disposition of this matter.”

It adds, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communication, or any other means.”

Unlike the earlier order, which did not identify the “protected persons” by name, the latest order includes a list of 34 people, 13 of whom are Capital Pride staff members or volunteers, including CEO Ryan Bos and Chief Operating Officer June Crenshaw. The other 21 people listed are identified as Capital Pride board members, including board chair Anna Jinkerson.

Possibly because Pasha addressed this in his suggested version of the order, the judge’s revised order says Pasha is allowed to visit the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center, where the Capital Pride office is located, if he gives the community center a 24 hour advance notice that he will be visiting the center, which hosts many events unrelated to Capital Pride. The earlier order required him to stay at least 100 feet away from the Capital Pride office.

The new order also prohibits Pasha from attending 21 named events that Capital Pride Alliance either organizes itself or with partner organizations that were scheduled to take place from April 30 through June 21. The order says he is allowed to attend the two largest events, the June 20 Pride Parade and the June 21 Pride Festival and Concert, in which 500,000 or more people are expected to attend.

It says Pasha is also allowed to attend the June 15 Pride At The Pier event organized by the Washington Blade.

But for those three events the order says he is restricted from entering “ticketed and controlled access areas.”

At the April 29 court hearing, Okun also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the civil complaint case brought by Capital Pride without going to trial. 

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Both sides propose revised orders in Capital Pride stalking case

Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive

Published

on

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

An evidentiary hearing in D.C. Superior Court on April 29 in which the Capital Pride Alliance presented three of four planned witnesses to testify in support of its civil complaint that D.C. gay activist Darren Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk its staff, board members, and volunteers ended abruptly at the direction of the judge.

Judge Robert D. Okun announced from the bench that the hearing, which was intended provide Capital Pride an opportunity to present evidence in support of its request to reinstate an anti-stalking order against Pasha that the judge temporarily rescinded on April 17, was no longer needed because Pasha stated at the hearing that he is willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.

Pasha made that statement after two Capital Pride witnesses — June Crenshaw and Vincenzo Volpe — each testified in support of the stalking allegations against Pasha for over an hour under questioning from Capital Pride attorney Nick Harrison and under cross-examination from Pasha, who is representing himself without an attorney.

After Capital Pride’s third witness, Tifany Royster, testified for just a few minutes, and after the judge called a recess for lunch and to attend to an unrelated case, Pasha announced that after obtaining legal advice he determined that he was unsuited to continue cross-examining the witnesses. He said he would be willing to accept a significantly less restrictive temporary restraining order.

Okun then ruled that the evidentiary hearing was no longer needed and directed Capital Pride and Pasha to submit to him their version of a revised stay away order. He said he would use their proposed revisions to help him develop his own order, which he would issue after deliberating over the matter.

He also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the case without going to trial. He then adjourned the hearing at 3:50 p.m.

The online Superior Court docket for the case stated after the hearing ended that the judge would issue “a new modified Temporary Protective Order,” but it did not say when it would be issued.   

Shortly before the April 29 hearing began at 11 a.m., Harrison filed a “Draft Temporary Anti-Stalking Order” that included a list of 34 “Protected Persons” that Harrison said during the hearing were affiliated with Capital Pride Alliance as staff and board members, volunteers, and others associated with the group.

The proposed order stated, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communications, or any other means.”

The proposal represented a significant change from Capital Pride’s initial civil complaint against Pasha filed in February that Pasha claimed called for him to stay away at least 200 yards from all Capital pride staff, board members, and volunteers without naming them. Okun granted that stay away request in February but reduced the stay away distance to 100 feet.

Capital Pride attorney Harrison disputes Pasha’s interpretation of the order, saying the 100-foot stay-away was for events, not for individual Capital Pride staff, volunteers, or board members. He said the order prohibited Pasha from engaging in any way with the Capital Pride staffers, volunteers or board members.

But the proposed order Capital Pride at first submitted at the April 29 hearing  also called for Pasha to stay away from and to not attend as many as 25 Capital Pride events scheduled to take place this year from April 30 through June 21 and for him to say away from the Capital Pride office located at 1827 Wiltberger St., N.W., which is the building in which it shares with the DC LGBTQ Community Center.

At the April 29 hearing, at Pasha’s request, Okun called on Capital Pride to consider allowing Pasha to attend at least the two largest events — the Capital Pride Parade and Festival — which draw over 500,000 participants.

Harrison said in a follow-up message to the judge following the hearing that Capital Pride would allow Pasha to attend those two events and one other as long as he stays away from “ticketed and controlled access areas.”

At an April 17 status hearing Okun rescinded the earlier stay away order at Pasha’s request, among other things, on grounds that it was too vague and didn’t provide Pasha with sufficient specific information on who to stay away from. It was at that hearing that Okun scheduled the April 29 evidentiary hearing, saying it would give Capital Pride a chance to provide sufficient evidence to justify an anti-stalking order and Pasha an opportunity to challenge the evidence.  

In his own response to the initial civil complaint filed in February and in subsequent court filings, Pasha has strongly denied he engaged in stalking and has alleged that the complaint was a form of retaliation against him over a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith.

Like its initial complaint filed in February, Capital Pride filed a multipage document at the start of the April 29 hearing with written testimony from staff members and volunteers who allege that Pasha did engage in stalking, harassment, and intimidating behavior toward them and others.

Like Capital Pride, Pasha following the April 29 hearing, filed his own proposed version of the stay away order with significantly less restrictions than the Capital Pride proposal. Among other things, it calls for him to restrict his contact with Capital Pride CEO Ryan Bos and Crenshaw but says it “does not by its terms restrict the defendant’s communications with any other person, entity, governmental body, or media outlet.”

“Darren Pasha sent multiple messages to us and to the court after the proceedings asking for further modifications — which we are not accepting or responding to,” Harrison told the Blade in response to a request for further comment on Judge’s request for each side to submit proposed revisions of the stay away order.

“We appreciate the court’s time and careful attention to the evidence presented today,” Harrison told the Washington Blade in a written statement after the hearing. “This process was about bringing forward the experiences of individuals who reported a pattern of conduct that caused fear, serious alarm, and emotional distress,” he said.

“Capital Pride Alliance remains committed to ensuring that our events and community spaces are safe, welcoming, and free from harassment and we will continue to take appropriate steps to support and protect our community,” his statement says.

“I am happy with what we have accomplished so far,” Pasha told the Blade after the hearing.  “I’m just waiting to see what will happen next. But I want to reiterate this goes back to when someone treats you wrong you speak up,” he said. “Even if I lose this case, I am glad that I spoke up and raised concerns.”

He added, “I will just be confident that in the next couple of months the truth will come out. But for now, I am happy with the progress that we have made regarding this.”

This story will be updated when the judge issues his revised stay away order.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

U.S. Attorney’s Office fails to reinstate hate crime charge in anti-gay assault

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

The Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C., which prosecutes criminal cases in the District, has decided not to reinstate a hate crime designation filed by D.C. police against a man arrested in February for allegedly assaulting a gay man while using “homophobic slurs.”

After prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office initially dropped the hate crime designation filed by police shortly after the alleged attacker was arrested on Feb. 7, a spokesperson for the office told the Washington Blade the case was still under investigation, and additional charges could be filed.

“We continue to investigate this matter and make no mistake: should the evidence call for further charges, we will not hesitate to charge them,” a statement released by the office in February said. 

But D.C. Superior Court records show the case against defendant Dean Edmundson, 26, of Germantown, Md., who is now charged with Simple Assault without a hate crime designation, is scheduled to go to trial on Aug. 18.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office this week did not immediately respond to a message from the Blade asking why it chose not to reinstate the hate crime designation.

An affidavit in support of the arrest filed in court by D.C. police appears to support the charge of a hate crime designation. It says the incident occurred around 7:45 p.m. on Feb. 7 at the intersection of 14th and Q Streets, N.W., which is near two D.C. gay bars.

“The victim stated that they refused to High-Five Defendant Edmundson, which, upon that happening, Defendant Edmundson 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 says, adding, “The victim stated that they felt offended and that they were also gay.”     

Under D.C.’s Bias Related Crimes Act of 1989, penalties for crimes motivated by prejudice and hate against individuals based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity disability, and homelessness can be enhanced by a judge upon conviction by one and a half times greater than the penalty of the underlying crime. 

Continue Reading

Popular