Local
D.C. co-op guilty of anti-gay discrimination
Commission says board twice refused to allow gay couple to buy apartment
Thad Kemp (Photo courtesy of Kemp)
In a little noticed action, the D.C. Commission on Human Rights ruled last April that the president and board of directors of a cooperative apartment building on Connecticut Avenue violated the city’s Human Rights Act by twice refusing to allow a gay couple to buy an apartment.
The case is unusual because the commission’s decision came more than 15 years after Thad S. Kemp and his then partner William L. Houston filed a discrimination complaint with the city’s Office of Human Rights against 2101 Connecticut Avenue Cooperative Apartments, Inc.
The complaint charged the upscale building, located across the street from the Chinese Embassy, with using a series of pretexts to deny the couple’s application to buy an apartment in the building on two separate occasions in 1997 because of their sexual orientation and their status as a mixed race couple. Kemp is white and Houston is black.
The building has appealed the commission’s decision before the D.C. Court of Appeals, arguing, among other things, that the commission’s recommended decision was made by an administrative law judge who did not preside over a three-day hearing in which key witnesses testified.
Attorney Stephen Horvath, who is representing 2101 Connecticut Avenue Co-op, notes in an appeal brief that the original chief hearing examiner who presided over the case, Cornelius Alexander, died in 2007 before reaching a decision. Horvath argues the administrative law judge for the commission who handed down the decision, Dianne Harris, wasn’t present at the hearing to see the witnesses testify and assess their credibility.
Harris states in her recommended decision that she carefully read the transcript of all testimony viewed and studied the exhibits and documents entered into evidence and obtained a full and impartial picture of the case. She disputes claims by Horvath that past court rulings require that a hearing examiner or judge be present during testimony by witnesses in order to issue a ruling on a civil case.
Harris noted that while she was not present during testimony in the 2003 evidentiary hearing to determine whether the co-op board and its president, John Rodler, were liable for the alleged discrimination, she did preside over a separate hearing to assess what the damages and penalty for the co-op should be.
The commission’s final decision and order, handed down on April 23, 2012, shows that then commissioners Christopher Dyer and Nkechi Jaifa voted to approve Harris’s recommended decision that the co-op and Rodler engaged in discrimination based on sexual orientation and racial discrimination against Kempt and Houston.
The third commissioner assigned to the case, gay attorney Michael Ward, dissented from the majority, saying he agreed with the co-op’s attorney that Harris should not have ruled on the case without having personally attended the hearing in question.
Michael Ward of the D.C. Commission on Human Rights. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
“Although I believe that there is adequate testimony from which the commission might infer liability, I believe that those inferences require assessment of credibility and that respondents cannot therefore be held liable absent a de novo [new] hearing at which the administrative law judge can make credibility determinations and propose a decision to the commission that reflects those determinations,” Ward wrote in his dissenting statement.
Dyer, the D.C. gay activist and former director of the Mayor’s office of GLBT Affairs, and Jaifa did not submit a statement explaining why they voted to approve Harris’s proposed decision.
Richard Salzman, the attorney representing Kemp and Houston, called the commission’s decision “fair and measured,” noting that it did not agree to all of the Kemp and Houston’s specific requests for damages. He noted that the commission denied Kemp’s request that the co-op pay him the amount of equity he would have accrued as the value of the two apartments he attempted to buy rose significantly in the 15 years since the co-op denied his application to buy the apartments.
“The evidence was overwhelming that the discrimination took place,” Salzman said. “It is clear to anyone who looks at the evidence presented.”
Under D.C. law, the D.C. Solicitor General, who is part of the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, is responsible for defending the Commission on Human Rights decision in the appeals court phase of the case.
A spokesperson for the Solicitor General said the office is scheduled to file its response to 2101 Connecticut Ave. Co-op’s appeal brief on Feb. 11.
In its April 23 decision, the D.C. Commission on Human Rights ordered the co-op to “cease and desist” from engaging in further discrimination against people who apply to buy an apartment in the building and who are covered under the D.C. Human Rights Act.
The decision also calls on the co-op building to pay Kemp $90,000 for the amount he paid ($515,000) for an apartment he bought in another building in excess of what he would have paid ($415,000) for one of the apartments he was prevented from buying in the co-op building.
In addition, the decision orders the co-op to pay Kemp $35,000 for “humiliation, embarrassment and indignity” he suffered due to the co-op’s discriminatory action against him. It calls for the co-op to award Houston $17,500 in damages for also suffering “humiliation, embarrassment and indignity.”
The co-op is also required to pay for Kemp and Houston’s attorney’s fees and to reimburse the city $6,458 in court reporting and transcription costs related to the case.
Why did this case take so long to go from the complaint to a decision by the commission?
David Simmons, chief administrative law judge for the Commission on Human Rights, told the Blade on Wednesday that one of the reasons Kemp and Houston’s discrimination case took 15 years to advance from the complaint to the commission’s decision last April was a lack of a sufficient number of hearing examiners and support staff for the commission.
He said more hearing examiners and support staff have been hired in recent years, but during the years that Alexander served as chief administrative law judge, the staffing was a “travesty,” he said. According to Simmons, at the time Alexander presided over the Kemp-Houston case, he was the only hearing examiner the commission had, forcing him to preside over all of the cases.
“I knew Cornelius Alexander, and he was hard-working and an excellent attorney,” he said. “In my view, the city killed him. They worked him to death.”
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.”
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
Ukrainian MPs advance new Civil Code without protections for same-sex couples
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
New Zealand blood donation rules shift
The university that refuses to let go
