District of Columbia
D.C. queer bar owners oppose ballot initiative to end tip wage system
‘I have not met a single server who wants this’
The owners of at least three of D.C.’s gay bars have joined representatives of nearly all the city’s restaurants, bars, and nightclubs in speaking out against a measure on the Nov. 8 D.C. election ballot calling for ending the so-called tipped wage system.
The ballot measure, called Initiative 82, calls for ending an exemption to the city’s minimum wage law that allows employers of tipped workers to pay them less than the prevailing minimum wage but requires them to make up the difference if the workers don’t earn the equivalent of the full minimum wage through their tips combined with the lower “tipped” wage.
D.C. restaurant industry officials argue that ending the tipped wage system, which is in place in all but seven states in the U.S., would create an economic hardship for their mostly small, community-based businesses by dramatically increasing labor costs at a time when they have yet to fully recover from the hardships caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
They say most tipped workers make significantly more than the city’s current $16.10 per hour minimum wage. The current lower “tipped” minimum wage in D.C. is $5.35 per hour.
“I have not met a single server who wants this,” said David Perruzza, who owns the Adams Morgan bars Pitchers and A League of Her Own, which share the same building.
“My staff makes $30 or more an hour,” he said, noting that all except his small kitchen staff are tipped workers. “I pay my non-tipped workers more than the minimum wage,” Perruzza told the Blade. “The people who support this don’t know anything about the service industry.”
Like other bar and restaurant owners, Perruzza said ending the tipped wage could result in the doubling of his payroll, which could force him to raise prices and possibly lay off employees, most of whom are LGBTQ.
John Guggenmos, co-owner of the Logan Circle area gay bars Number 9 and Trade, and Jo McDaniel, co-owner of the recently opened Capitol Hill gay bar As You Are, said they too believe the approval of Initiative 82 by voters on Nov. 8 would have a negative impact on their businesses.
Guggenmos said the initiative would also have a negative impact on consumers because prices would have to be increased, and a service charge of as much as 20 percent could be put in place to offset the higher labor costs. Opponents of the initiative argue that a service charge of as much as 20 percent added to the customer’s bill would prompt at least some to cut back on tipping.
Ryan O’Leary, a gay former service industry employee who serves as chair of the Committee to Build A Better Restaurant Industry, the organization leading the campaign in support of Initiative 82, disputes the claims by restaurant and bar industry representatives that ending the lower tipped wage will seriously harm their businesses.
O’Leary told the Washington Blade that both tipped workers and the restaurants and bars for which they work are doing “very well” in the states that do not have a tipped wage system, including in California, where tipped workers earn $15 per hour minimum wage plus tips.
He said tipped workers in D.C. and other states where the tipped wage is in place have reported that restaurant employers engage in subtle forms of retaliation against workers who request to be paid the difference if they don’t earn the equivalent of the full minimum wage through tips.
According to O’Leary, a growing number of D.C. restaurants and bars are already paying their tipped workers the full D.C. minimum wage or just short of the full minimum wage, in part, because of staff shortages brought about by the COVID pandemic.
“Those that did this are doing very well,” he said. “Some restaurants are fear mongering about tipped workers losing money or losing their jobs if Initiative 82 passes.”
O’Leary also points out that under Initiative 82, the full minimum wage for tipped workers will be phased in over a five-year period from 2023 to 2027. Supporters of the initiative say this will minimize if not eliminate any significant economic impact on restaurants and bars.
Among those who strongly dispute the arguments made by O’Leary and others backing Initiative 82 is Mark Lee, coordinator of the D.C. Nightlife Council, a local organization that advocates for businesses such as restaurants, bars, and nightclubs.
Lee said the decision by restaurant and bar owners to adopt a higher minimum wage is based on market conditions such as staff shortages and that’s a “good thing” that should be left to the marketplace. He said Initiative 82 would force businesses to raise tipped employees’ minimum wage in circumstances where it is not needed, and which will hurt both the businesses and the employees.
“Federal data indicates that D.C. tipped employees at bars and restaurants earn well above the local minimum wage, currently at $16.10 per hour, and earn more than tipped workers in the handful of states that either never had a tipped-credit or outlawed the tip-credit more than 40 years ago,” Lee told the Blade in a statement.
Lee points to data released by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that the average tipped worker’s wages in D.C. are close to $27 per hour. He says the data show that average earnings of D.C. tipped workers under the current system are more than $10 per hour above the earnings of tipped workers in states that don’t have a tipped wage system.
“There’s a reason that no state has gotten rid of the tip-credit in more than four decades, and that’s because elected leaders know that workers are opposed and that worker wages will decline,” Lee said.
“Initiative 82 backers falsely claim that so-called ‘wage theft’ and ‘retaliation’ is rampant and widespread at local bars and restaurants, while offering no actual evidence,” Lee said. “First of all, it’s extremely rare that a tipped worker’s base wage and tips do not exceed the minimum wage, as the D.C. Office of Wage-Hour Compliance can attest,” according to Lee.
“But more than that, no worker would stay at a venue if it did violate the law, as hospitality jobs are plentiful as the second-largest local employment sector,” he said.
O’Leary said claims by opponents of Initiative 82 that nearly all tipped workers earn more than the full D.C. minimum wage cannot be verified because the D.C. Office of Employment Services has failed to enforce a law requiring service industry businesses like restaurants and bars to submit to the office wage data for all their employees.
He points to a nearly identical measure calling for ending the tipped wage system that D.C. voters approved in 2018 by a 55 percent vote margin that strongly indicates voters will approve Initiative 82 on Nov. 8.
In a highly controversial development, the D.C. Council overturned the 2018 measure, called Initiative 77, on grounds that most tipped workers did not support it and it would be harmful to restaurants and bars.
But political observers this year note that the makeup of the D.C. Council changed since it overturned Initiative 77 in 2018 and the current Council is expected to allow Initiative 82 to become law if voters approve it this time around.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson, who supported the decision to overturn Initiative 77 in 2018, have each said they will not support an attempt to overturn Initiative 82 if D.C. voters approve it next week.
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.
District of Columbia
U.S. Attorney’s Office fails to reinstate hate crime charge in anti-gay assault
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.
-
European Union3 days agoEuropean Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
Delaware5 days agoRep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
-
Maryland5 days agoBaltimore Heritage wants Md. LGBTQ historical sites added to National Registry
-
Federal Government2 days agoRepublicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
