Local
Lesbian restaurant owner appeals for help in dispute
Hank’s Oyster Bar forced to close part of patio during Pride
The lesbian owner of a popular seafood restaurant along the 17th Street business district near Dupont Circle is asking the community to support the repeal of a city law that she says allowed six people to force her to reduce her outdoor seating capacity from 40 to 20 customers.
Jamie Leeds, the chef and owner of Hank’s Oyster Bar at 1624 Q Street, N.W., issued a statement over the weekend informing customers and supporters that inspectors with the city’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ordered her on Friday night, June 8, to close half of the restaurant’s patio space.
Leeds said that the order came the day before the annual Capital Pride Parade was to travel past her patio, limiting the number of patrons who wanted to dine on the patio while watching the parade.
“This action shutting down half of our outdoor patio on the night before the annual parade was the result of one of the license protestants phoning in a complaint to the city, and occurs before we have even had a hearing before the ABC Board,” Leeds said in an open letter to the community.
“The ongoing harassment by this small band of residents is astonishing and the timing of this individual’s complaint before the annual celebration is despicable,” she wrote in her letter.
Leeds’ call for the repeal of the law that allows as few as five citizens to contest liquor license applications comes at a time when gay and straight nightlife advocates have urged gay D.C. Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) to consider introducing legislation to ease what the advocates say are overly burdensome regulations pertaining to such businesses. Graham chairs the Council committee that oversees the city’s liquor laws and the agency that enforces them.
Michael Hibey, the attorney representing the six residents opposing Hank’s Oyster Bar’s use of the expanded outdoor seating, declined to comment. David J. Mallof, one of the six nearby residents who has taken a lead role in opposing Hank’s expansion of its outdoor seating, also declined to comment.
The Blade couldn’t immediately reach the other five residents opposing the termination of the voluntary agreement. They are: Alexis Rieffel, Ralph N. Johnson, Susan Meehan, Michael Fasano and Patricia E. Steele.
Fred Moosally, director of the city’s Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration, which oversees the ABC Board, confirmed on Monday that the inspectors responded to a complaint by a representative of the six residents opposed to the restaurant’s expansion.
But Moosally told the Blade that the call for restricting the patio’s use was in response to a May 17 D.C. Court of Appeals decision ordering the city to reinstate a document known as a voluntary agreement between Leeds and the six residents. The agreement bars Hank’s from expanding its patio or any part of the restaurant beyond the space it occupied at the time it opened in 2005.
At Leeds’ request and following an earlier hearing, the board terminated the voluntary agreement in 2010, allowing her to expand into outdoor and indoor space in an adjacent building that became vacant that year.
The six residents appealed the board’s action to the Court of Appeals. The court voided the board’s order terminating the voluntary agreement and remanded the case back to the board. It instructed the board to consider two issues the court said the board was legally required to consider but failed to do so at the time it terminated the voluntary agreement.
Moosally said ABC Board inspectors informed Leeds on June 2 during a visit to the restaurant of the court ruling and its effect of reinstating her voluntary agreement. Although he didn’t say so directly, he implied that Hank’s knew more than a week before the Pride parade that it couldn’t use the full space of the patio at the time of the June 9 parade.
Andrew Kline, a licensing counsel representing Leeds before the ABC Board, disputes Moosally’s assessment, saying he believes the board had to take “another step” of rescinding its 2010 order terminating the voluntary agreement before it could require Hank’s to give up use of the full patio.
Kline said the court decision didn’t prevent the board from allowing Hank’s to continue to use its full patio while the board deliberates over its decision, as mandated by the court, to make a determination on whether the voluntary agreement should once again be terminated.
The board scheduled a hearing on Wednesday, June 13, to address issues that the appeals court said must be resolved before the board can make a final decision on whether to retain or terminate the voluntary agreement.
The court decision was the latest development in a seven-year dispute between Hank’s Oyster Bar and the handful of nearby residents, who have contested the restaurant’s liquor license in an effort to obtain restrictions through the voluntary agreement.
Leeds says in her letter that she was pressured into signing the voluntary agreement in 2005, the year she opened the restaurant, as a condition to end a formal protest of the license by the six residents. She said the license protest could have dragged on for months, delaying her ability to obtain a liquor license and jeopardizing her ability to open her new business.
Most observers following the dispute, including LGBT activists, believe Hank’s opponents are motivated by an aversion to an “overconcentration” of liquor serving establishments on 17th Street, which the opponents say have the potential for causing neighborhood disturbances. Most observers don’t think the opponents of Hank’s expansion are motivated by anti-gay sentiment.
But many LGBT activists have teamed up with nightlife advocates in calling on the City Council to repeal the law that gives as few as five residents legal standing to challenge a liquor license and push for restrictions similar to those in the voluntary agreement signed by Hank’s.
They point out that Hank’s has never caused any problems in the neighborhood, either before or after it expanded its operations into the adjacent space in 2011.
Although the ABC Board makes the final decision on approving a voluntary agreement or approving restrictions on the operation of bars and restaurants, business owners have said a protest by a “gang of five,” as the business owners have called the protesting residents, can hold up a license for months. They say the delays result in high monetary costs for legal fees and the cost of renting spaces that can’t generate revenue until the license is approved.
One proposal offered by nightlife advocates is to eliminate the existing provision of the liquor law that gives five or more citizens authority to contest liquor licenses and restrict that authority to the elected Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. ANC’s currently have that authority.
“If you agree that allowing a small number of individuals to dictate what happens in our community is wrong, please contact ABRA; Ward 2 Council member Jack Evans; Council member Jim Graham, chair of the committee that oversees ABC [Board issues]; and Mayor Vincent Gray,” Leeds said in her open letter. “The right of a group of 5 residents to hold up a license application should be eliminated from the law.”
Leeds’ letter came two days after Mayor Gray told a joint Capital Pride-Washington Blade town hall meeting that he was concerned over the ability of just five people to block licensing applications for businesses such as restaurants.
“I don’t think a small handful of people should be given the opportunity to unreasonably hold up action on something that a preponderance of the people want to move forward on,” Gray said.
“I have always believed that most so-called ‘voluntary agreements’ are actually ‘coerced’ agreements,’” said gay activist Peter Rosenstein, who lives about two blocks from Hank’s.
“[T]his case should convince the City Council and the mayor to change the law,” Rosenstein said. “We live in a democracy and allowing a complaint by five people to determine what is seating capacity for a restaurant is clearly not democracy.”
Rick Rosendall, vice president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance and a resident of 17th Street near Hank’s Oyster Bar, characterized as “outrageous” the action by the six residents to restrict Hank’s patio usage.
“It is absurd and harmful, and D.C. Council members and Mayor Gray need to hear from people who appreciate that the neighborhood and the city are not served by allowing small, unrepresentative groups to hold everyone else hostage to their cramped, entitlement-drenched desire to turn thriving urban neighborhoods into quiet suburbs,” Rosendall said.
One of the court’s requirements is that Leeds makes a “good faith” effort to reach a new voluntary agreement with the six residents, something Leeds doesn’t think is possible.
“[W]e did try to work this out with those opposed to us back when we first sought termination of the VA, but they refused to meet,” she said. “Since the Court of Appeals decision was reached, we offered to address their concerns with a more limited VA, but they insist we cut our outdoor occupancy by 25 percent, even though there have been no complaints.”
The second requirement is to show that the neighborhood has changed since the time the agreement was signed in 2005 that would support terminating the agreement. Kline said one key change that has occurred is the ABC Board repealed part of a longstanding 17th Street moratorium on new liquor licenses that prevented bars and restaurants from laterally expanding to adjacent buildings or properties.
The Dupont Circle Advisory Neighborhood Commission, which supports allowing Hank’s to expand its patio, supported the lifting of the moratorium on lateral expansion.
The president of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association, Doug Rogers, issued a statement on Monday denouncing the ABC Board’s decision to shut down Hank’s expanded patio operation, saying the board should have waited until after its scheduled hearing on June 13.
“What is even more infuriating is that two toxic people in our neighborhood are allowed to shut down part of a legitimate business and force them to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees,” Rogers said in his statement. “Their ability to do this should be eliminated from D.C. law, and I urge Mayor Gray and the D.C. Council to reform D.C.’s archaic regulatory laws.”
District of Columbia
D.C. pays $500,000 to settle lawsuit brought by gay Corrections Dept. employee
Alleged years of verbal harassment, slurs, intimidation
The D.C. government on Feb. 5 agreed to pay $500,000 to a gay D.C. Department of Corrections officer as a settlement to a lawsuit the officer filed in 2021 alleging he was subjected to years of discrimination at his job because of his sexual orientation, according to a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C.
The statement says the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Sgt. Deon Jones by the ACLU of D.C. and the law firm WilmerHale, alleged that the Department of Corrections, including supervisors and co-workers, “subjected Sgt. Jones to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man, in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.”
Daniel Gleick, a spokesperson for D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, said the mayor’s office would have no comment on the lawsuit settlement. The Washington Blade couldn’t immediately reach a spokesperson for the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents the city against lawsuits.
Bowser and her high-level D.C. government appointees, including Japer Bowles, director of the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs, have spoken out against LGBTQ-related discrimination.
“Jones, now a 28-year veteran of the Department and nearing retirement, faced years of verbal abuse and harassment from coworkers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment,” the ACLU’s statement says.
“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,” it says.
“For years, I showed up to do my job with professionalism and pride, only to be targeted because of who I am,” Jones says in the ACLU statement. “This settlement affirms that my pain mattered – and that creating hostile workplaces has real consequences,” he said.
He added, “For anyone who is LGBTQ or living with a disability and facing workplace discrimination or retaliation, know this: you are not powerless. You have rights. And when you stand up, you can achieve justice.”
The settlement agreement, a link to which the ACLU provided in its statement announcing the settlement, states that plaintiff Jones agrees, among other things, that “neither the Parties’ agreement, nor the District’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.
“But actions speak louder than words,” he told the Blade. “The fact that they are paying our client a half million dollars for the pervasive and really brutal harassment that he suffered on the basis of his identity for years is much more telling than their disclaimer itself,” he said.
The settlement agreement also says Jones would be required, as a condition for accepting the agreement, to resign permanently from his job at the Department of Corrections. Michelman said Jones has been on leave from work for a period of time, but he did not know how long. Jones couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
“This is really something that makes sense on both sides,” Michelman said of the resignation requirements. “The environment had become so toxic the way he had been treated on multiple levels made it difficult to see how he could return to work there.”
Virginia
Spanberger signs bill that paves way for marriage amendment repeal referendum
Proposal passed in two successive General Assembly sessions
Virginians this year will vote on whether to repeal a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger on Friday signed state Del. Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County)’s House Bill 612, which finalized the referendum’s language.
The ballot question that voters will consider on Election Day is below:
Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to: (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?
Voters in 2006 approved the Marshall-Newman Amendment.
Same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in Virginia since 2014. Former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who is a Republican, in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.
Two successive legislatures must approve a proposed constitutional amendment before it can go to the ballot.
A resolution to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment passed in the General Assembly in 2025. Lawmakers once again approved it last month.
“20 years after Virginia added a ban on same-sex marriage to our Constitution, we finally have the chance to right that wrong,” wrote Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman on Friday in a message to her group’s supporters.
Virginians this year will also consider proposed constitutional amendments that would guarantee reproductive rights and restore voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their sentences.
District of Columbia
D.C. non-profits find creative ways to aid the unhoused amid funding cuts
City’s poor economic mobility makes it easier to slip into homelessness
Homelessness is unlikely to disappear entirely, but it can be minimized and controlled.
That principle guides Everyone Home Executive Director Karen Cunningham’s approach to homeless support and prevention in D.C.
“There’s always going to be some amount of people who have a crisis,” Cunningham said. “The goal is that if they become homeless, [it’s] rare, brief and non-recurring. And in order for that to be the case, we need to have steady investments in programs that we know work over time.”
Making those investments has proven to be an unprecedented challenge, however. Cunningham said non-profits and other organizations like Everyone Home are grappling with government funding cuts or stalls that threaten the work they do to support D.C.’s homeless population.
Despite a 9% decrease in homelessness from 2024 to 2025, advocates worry that stagnant funding will make that progress hard to sustain. Furthermore, D.C. has the worst unemployment rate in the country at 6.7% as of December. The city’s poor economic mobility makes it easier for people to slip into homelessness and harder to break free of it.
There’s a way forward, Cunningham said, but it’s going to take a lot of perseverance and creative solutions from those willing to stay in the fight.
Fighting through setbacks
Reduced funding from the city government has shifted the way Everyone Home operates.
In D.C.’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, homeless services and prevention programs saw stalled growth or financial reductions. Even just a few years ago, Cunningham said Everyone Home received a large influx of vouchers to help people who needed long-term supportive housing. The vouchers allowed the non-profit to break people free of the homeless cycle and secure stable housing.
However, those vouchers are scarce these days. Cunningham said the city is investing less in multi-year programs and more in programs that offer preventative and upfront support.
She said this reality has forced Everyone Home to stop operating its Family Rapid Rehab program, which helps families leave shelters and transition into permanent housing. Current funds couldn’t withstand the size of the program and Cunningham said very few organizations can still afford to run similar programs.
The Family Homelessness Prevention program, however, is thriving and expanding at Everyone Home due to its short-term nature. It provides families with 90-day support services to help them get back on track and secure stable finances and housing.
Everyone Home also offers a drop-in day center, where they provide people with emergency clothing, laundry, and meals, and has a street outreach team to support those who are chronically homeless and offer services to them.
Inconsistencies in financial support have created challenges in providing the necessary resources to those struggling. It’s led non-profits like Everyone Home to get creative with their solutions to ensuring no one has recurring or long spouts of homelessness.
“It’s really a sustained investment in these programs and services that can allow us to chip away, because if you put all these resources in and then take your foot off the gas, there’s always people entering the system,” Cunningham said. “And so we have to always be moving people out into housing.”
Getting people in and out of the homeless system isn’t easy due to D.C.’s struggle with providing accessible and affordable housing, D.C. Policy Center executive director Yesim Sayin said in a Nov. 16 Washington Blade article.
Sayin said that D.C.’s construction tailors to middle or upper class people who live in the city because work brought them there, but it excludes families and D.C. natives who may be on the verge of homelessness and have less geographic mobility.
Building more and building smarter ensures D.C.’s low-income population aren’t left behind and at risk of becoming homeless, Sayin said.
That risk is a common one in D.C. given its low economic mobility. Residents have less room to financially grow given the city’s high cost of living, making vulnerable communities more prone to homelessness.
With funding cuts for long-term programs, preventative programs have proven to be vital in supporting the homeless population. When someone becomes homeless, it can have a snowball effect on their life. They aren’t just losing a house –– they may lose their job, access to reliable transportation and food for their family.
Cunningham said resources like the Family Homelessness Prevention program allows people to grow and stabilize before losing crucial life resources.
“Helping people keep what they have and to try to grow that as much as possible is really important where there aren’t a lot of opportunities…for people to increase their income,” Cunningham said.
Through all the funding cuts and reduced services, D.C.’s homeless support organizations are still finding a path forward –– a path that many residents and families rely on to survive.
Pushing forward
Local non-profits and organizations like Everyone Home are the backbone of homeless support when all other systems fail.
When the White House issued an executive order directing agencies to remove homeless encampments on federal land, Coalition For The Homeless provided ongoing shelter to those impacted.
“We were asked by our funders to open two shelters at the time of the encampment policy announcement,” Lucho Vásquez, executive director of Coalition For The Homeless, said. “We opened the shelters on the same day of the request and have been housing 100 more people who are unhoused each night since August.”
This was achieved even after Coalition faced “severe cuts in funding for supportive and security services,” according to Vásquez. Staff members have taken on additional responsibilities to make up for the loss in security coverage and supportive services with no increase in pay, but Vásquez said they’re still trying to fill gaps left by the cuts.
Coalition offers free transitional housing, single room occupancy units and affordable apartments to people who were unhoused.
Coalition For The Homeless isn’t the only non-profit that’s had to step up its services amid dwindling resources. Thrive D.C. provides hot meals, showers, and winter clothes, which is especially important during the winter months.
Pathways to Housing D.C. offers housing services for people regardless of their situation or condition. Its “Housing First” teams house people directly from the streets, and then evaluate their mental and physical health, employment, addiction status, and education challenges to try to integrate them back into the community.
Covenant House is a homeless shelter for youth ages 18-24. They provide resources and shelter for youth “while empowering young people in their journey to independence and stability,” its website reads. Through its variety of programs, Friendship Place ended or prevented homelessness, found employment and provided life-changing services for more than 5,400 people.
These groups have made a huge local difference with little resources, but Cunningham said there are more ways for people to support those experiencing homelessness if they’re strapped for time or money. Aside from donating and volunteering, she said even simply showing compassion toward people who are struggling can go a long way.
Cunningham said compassion is something that’s been lost in the mainstream, with politicians and news anchors regularly directing hostile rhetoric toward homeless populations. But now more than ever, she said caring and understanding for fellow community members is key to moving forward and lifting those in need up.
“People sometimes feel invisible or that there’s a sense of hostility,” Cunningham said. “I think all of us can at least do that piece of recognizing people’s humanity.”
(This article is part of a national initiative exploring how geography, policy, and local conditions influence access to opportunity. Find more stories at economicopportunitylab.com.)


