Local
Lesbian officers accuse D.C. police of discrimination
Mendelson urges city to settle lawsuit charging harassment, retaliation
‘I would hope that the department has gotten better since the time of these allegations,’ said acting D.C. City Council Chair Phil Mendelson about a bias lawsuit filed by two lesbian police officers. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Acting D.C. City Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large) said he would like to see the city’s attorney general consider settling a little noticed discrimination lawsuit filed against the District in January 2011 by two lesbian members of the Metropolitan Police Department.
Det. Kennis M. Weeks and Officer Tonia L. Jones charge in a 38-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that they’ve been subjected to discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on their sexual orientation and sex since September 2006, when they disclosed they were in a same-sex relationship.
“One would hope the alleged conduct is no longer continuing,” said Mendelson, who chairs the Council committee that oversees the police department. “And I would hope that the department has gotten better since the time of these allegations.”
The lawsuit charges that at least seven sergeants, two lieutenants, and three officers from the Seventh District – along with Seventh District Commander Joel Maupin – played some role in carrying out the alleged discrimination.
Police officials “created and tolerated an environment in which employees could harass plaintiffs on the basis of their sex and sexual orientation without any investigation or repercussions,” the lawsuit says.
It says Weeks and Jones filed complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation and sexual harassment in October 2007 with the police department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Division.
“On Nov. 19, 2007, MDP’s Assistant Chief, Peter Newsham, made a decision not to investigate plaintiff’s internal EEO complaints,” the lawsuit says.
Cathy Harris, the attorney representing the two women, said Newsham instead told them they should file their complaint with the city’s Office of Human Rights.
“They were shocked that the department wouldn’t address this internally,” Harris said.
When asked about the case following an Aug. 9 news conference on an unrelated issue, Newsham told the Blade he couldn’t discuss details of a pending case.
“With regards to any lawsuits, you know that people draw up whatever type of complaint they want, and just because someone raises those issues doesn’t mean they’re true,” he said. “Things have to be verified and investigated. So I think it’s premature to draw any conclusion from a civil complaint that’s filed somewhere,” he said.
D.C. police spokesperson Gwendolyn Crump said police are referring all inquires about the case to the D.C. Attorney General’s office, which is defending the city against the lawsuit in court.
Ted Gest, a spokesperson for D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan, said his office also had no comment on the case. Gest said that at the present time, the office’s response to the case – Tonia L. Jones and Kennis M. Weeks vs. the District of Columbia – is reflected in their court filings.
The court filings on behalf of the city contest some of the claims made by Weeks and Jones on procedural and technical grounds, saying their attorneys missed filing deadlines requiring that the claims be dismissed. A March 23, 2011 brief filed by Nathan and three other attorneys from the Attorney General’s office disputes several of Weeks and Jones’ discrimination allegations on the merits, saying Seventh District supervisors based their actions on standard personnel practices rather than discrimination.
On July 25, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer approved a motion by the city calling for dismissal of several of the claims in the case, including those alleging that the police action violated Weeks and Jones’ First Amendment constitutional right of freedom of speech by allegedly retaliating against them when they filed an internal police grievance about the alleged discrimination.
Collyer also dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that police and the city violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
But the judge left in place most of Weeks and Jones’ other claims of sexual orientation discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act and sex discrimination under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In her ruling, Collyer noted that the D.C. Office of Human Rights found probable cause in several of the lawsuit’s allegations that police officials committed sexual orientation and sex discrimination against Weeks and Jones in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act. Attorneys for Weeks and Jones have since transferred the case from the Human Rights Office to the court’s jurisdiction.
In its brief contesting the lawsuit, the D.C. Attorney General’s office argued that the Office of Human Rights also found no probable cause that “plaintiffs were subjected to disparate treatment on the bases of sexual orientation and sex” regarding their specific allegation that they were not allowed to ride together in a police cruiser on patrol duty.
The attorney general’s brief also says no probable cause was found for an allegation in the lawsuit that a decision to give police cases that Jones was working on to male detectives was based on discrimination.
A court scheduling conference is set for Aug. 28, where court observers say a trial date might be scheduled.
Mendelson said he was unaware of the lawsuit until the Blade informed him about it last week and provided him with an online link to the complaint.
“Of course we don’t know what the facts are because this is still pending in court,” Mendelson said. “It’s discouraging to read this kind of alleged conduct. And of course the judicial process is one where the facts will be determined,” he said.
“I would hope that the police department is addressing this and the attorney general is looking at whether it would be better for the District to just settle the case and ensure that this kind of conduct no longer occurs,” Mendelson said.
Although filed in January 2011, the case received no known news media coverage until Aug. 3, when Courthouse News Service published an online story reporting that Judge Collyer dismissed some of the claims in the case while upholding others. Three days later, Huffington Post published a similar story with the link to the Courthouse News Service story.
News of the case is likely to raise concern among LGBT activists, who have been assured by D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier that anti-LGBT bias within the ranks of the department was mostly a thing of the past and that the department doesn’t tolerate such bias.
The lawsuit says the alleged discrimination and harassment began in September 2006 after Weeks and Jones told one of their supervisors at the Seventh District, Sgt. Jon Podorski, that they were a couple. The two had been squad car partners since early 2006 and began a relationship in July of that year, the lawsuit says.
“Almost immediately thereafter, the sergeants began harassing them and subjecting them to a hostile working environment on a frequent and continuing basis,” the suit says.
“Plaintiffs complained about the discrimination to MPD in January 2007,” it says. “However, this had the effect of continuing and increasing the harassment and hostile work environment.”
According to the lawsuit, several of the sergeants named in the suit continuously made derogatory comments about Weeks and Jones in the presence of fellow officers and supervisors. Among other things, the suit says the sergeants – who served as Weeks and Jones’ supervisors – urged them to have sex with men, with one sergeant referring to Jones as the “butch one” and Weeks as the “femme one.”
During a May 2007 party in which many Seventh District officers were in attendance, one sergeant shouted in a loud voice to both Jones and Weeks, “Do you wanna fuck?” the lawsuit says.
“Plaintiffs were mortified, embarrassed and threatened by this verbal assault, which was within earshot of many of their colleagues,” the suit says.
In September 2007 an officer told Weeks and Jones he wanted to watch them have sex and that he would “pay them $5,000 for the opportunity to do so,” the lawsuit says.
“On February 17, 2009, someone put an open tampon and parts of the tampon wrapper on plaintiff Weeks’ desk,” it says. “Plaintiff Weeks reported the incident to defendant and requested an official investigation. Defendant never initiated an investigation,” according to the lawsuit.
Attorney Harris said the two women were shocked and horrified over an October 2006 incident that occurred shortly after they informed Podorski of their relationship.
“Plaintiffs and Sgt. Podorski responded to a call on Stanton Road regarding an alleged assault with a deadly weapon,” the lawsuit says. “The matter concerned a mother, a relative and a child. The mother and relative had responded violently after the child had informed them that she was gay.”
The lawsuit continues: “Plaintiffs intended to arrest the mother and the relative for the violent offenses. But Sgt. Podorski instructed the plaintiffs to instead take the child to the Psychiatric Institute of Washington and have her committed because she was gay,” the lawsuit says.
“He also stated that no arrest should be made because it was ‘only’ a domestic disturbance. Plaintiffs objected to this order,” the lawsuit says. “Sgt. Podorski was later investigated by the MPD for this incident and, upon information and belief, he was suspended. Nevertheless, despite the complaints made by plaintiffs about Podorski’s harassment and his discriminatory conduct, he has never been disciplined for his harassment of plaintiffs,” the lawsuit alleges.
Harris said her clients separated as a couple over a year ago, in part, due to the stress they encountered from the harassment and discrimination charged in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, among other things, calls for compensatory damages and back pay for what Jones claims is the loss of a promotion due to bias on the part of police officials.
“I really want to make it clear about my clients,” Harris said. “They’re not doing it because of the money. They’re doing it because what happened to them was wrong and they want to make sure that this doesn’t happen to any other officer or detective or employee of the MPD, no matter what their sexual orientation or gender is.”
Harris said she never informed the media about the case because Weeks and Jones were hopeful that the case could be resolved quietly.
“They were not seeking publicity – just relief and justice,” she said.
Now that the case is beginning to receive public attention, Harris added, “Anything the gay community can do to help D.C. understand that this is totally unacceptable and should be resolved – we’re happy to get that support.”
“Even though this case is still under investigation, the allegations show a deeper homophobia present in MPD than leadership, including Chief Lanier, publicly acknowledges,” A.J. Singletary, chair of Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence (GLOV) told the Blade, Wednesday. “Rather than fight the charges on procedural and technical grounds, GLOV urges MPD to investigate the actual allegations and fix not only the specific issue with the two women involved but also the broader problem of homophobia within MPD.”
District of Columbia
Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case
Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive
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.
District of Columbia
Both sides propose revised orders in Capital Pride stalking case
Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive
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.
Rehoboth Beach
Rehoboth’s Blue Moon sold; new owners to preserve LGBTQ legacy
‘They don’t want to change a thing’
The iconic Blue Moon restaurant and bar in Rehoboth Beach, Del., has been sold to new owners who have pledged to keep it an LGBTQ-affirming space, according to longtime owner Tim Ragan.
Ragan and his partner Randy Haney sold the Blue Moon to Dale Lomas and Mike Subrick, owners of Atlantic Liquors on Route 1.
“They don’t want to change a thing,” Ragan said. “They’re local people, they live here. Dale worked his first job at Dolle’s.”
Ragan and Haney did not sell the business, only the real estate. The deal includes a 10-year lease with renewal options under which Ragan and Haney will continue to operate the Moon. He noted that the couple could opt to sell the business at any time.
“It’s going really well so I’m not in any hurry,” Ragan told the Blade. “It’s hard to run a business and manage a property that’s 120 years old — now someone else has to fix the air conditioning. Our responsibility will be to run the business.”
Ragan offered reassurances that the Moon will continue to be a gay-friendly destination.
“Dale’s comment was that Rehoboth has been good to us and we just want to give back. The Moon is part of Rehoboth’s history and we want to preserve that.”
He said there are no immediate changes planned for the structure, apart from a new roof in the atrium that was damaged in a hail storm. Ragan noted that the property comes with several apartment rental licenses that they have never exercised and the new owners may decide to rent those out.
The Blue Moon business, at 35 Baltimore Ave., dates to 1981 and is an integral part of Rehoboth’s LGBTQ community, hosting countless entertainment events, drag shows, and more over 45 years. Local residents have celebrated birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, and other special occasions in the acclaimed restaurant.
The two buildings associated with the sale were listed by Carrie Lingo at 35 Baltimore Ave., and include an apartment, the front restaurant (6,600 square feet with three floors and a basement), and a secondary building (roughly 1,800 square feet on two floors). They were listed for $4.5 million. The bar and restaurant business were being sold separately.
But then, earlier this year, the Blue Moon real estate listing turned up on the Sussex County Sheriff’s Office auction site. The auction was slated for Tuesday, April 21 but hours before the sale, the listing changed to “active under contract” indicating that a buyer had been found but the sale was not yet final.
Ragan said the issue was the parties couldn’t resolve how much was owed due to a disagreement with the bank. “We didn’t owe $3 million,” he said. “We said we’re not paying any more until we sell.”
The sale contract was written five months ago. It took three attorneys to get a payoff amount agreed to by the bank, he added.
“No one wanted to buy both things. We now have a longterm lease. We couldn’t be happier.”
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
The queer appeal of ‘The Devil Wears Prada’
Lesbifriends Travel to host queer night out
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
Federal Government5 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
European Union3 days ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
Delaware4 days ago
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
-
News5 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
