District of Columbia

D.C. bill to study trans deaths faces opposition from LGBTQ advocates

Measure calls for creating Medical Examiner committee to identify trends

Published

2 years ago

May 13, 2024

D.C. Council member Brooke Pinto. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

In a little-noticed development, D.C. Council member Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) introduced a bill in September 2023 calling for creating a special committee within the D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to determine and study trends related to the cause of death of transgender and “gender diverse” people in the District of Columbia.

The bill is called the Transgender and Gender Diverse Mortality and Fatality Review Committee Establishment Act. Among other things, it mandates that the medical examiner’s office through the newly created committee “identify and characterize the scope and nature of transgender and gender-diverse mortalities and fatalities, to describe and record any trends, data, or patterns that are observed surrounding transgender and gender-diverse mortalities and fatalities.”

In a development that some observers say caught Pinto off guard, officials with two prominent D.C. LGBTQ supportive organizations – the Whitman Walker Institute and the LGBTQ youth advocacy group SMYAL – expressed strong opposition to the bill in testimony submitted in April as a follow-up to a Council hearing on the bill conducted by Pinto on March 21.

Among other things, the officials – Benjamin Brooks, Whitman-Walker Institute’s Associate Director of Policy and Education; and Erin Whelan, SMYAL’s executive director, said the committee to be created by the bill to identify trans people who die would be an invasion of their and their families’ privacy. The two said the funds needed to pay for identifying whether someone who dies is transgender should be used instead for other endeavors, including supporting trans people in need, and protecting their rights.

The hearing record for the Council’s Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, which Pinto chairs and which conducted the hearing, shows that Brooks and Whelan were among four witnesses that testified against the bill. Six witnesses, including officials with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and Medical Society of the District of Columbia, testified in support of the bill.

Also testifying in support of the bill with suggested revisions was Vincent Slatt, who serves as chair of the D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commission Rainbow Caucus.

Jenna Beebe-Aryee, Supervisory Fatality Review Program Manager for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, testified that the bill would be “remarkably challenging” for that office and its partnering city agencies to carry out, including what she said would be a difficult process of identifying whether someone who has died is transgender or gender diverse. But she did not state that her office and the Office of the Mayor outright oppose the bill.

The bill has remained in Pinto’s committee since the time of the hearing, with no indication from Pinto of what her plans are for going forward with the bill, including whether she plans to make revisions and if or when she may plan to bring the bill to the full Council for a vote.

Victoria Casarrubias, Pinto’s communications director, told the Blade last week that Pinto’s office had no immediate comment on Pinto’s plans for the bill.

The 17-page bill, according to its introductory summary page, would also “create a strategic framework for improving transgender and gender-diverse health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities in the District,” and to “recommend training to improve the identification, investigation, and prevention of transgender and gender-diverse fatalities, and to make publicly available an annual report of its findings, recommendations, and steps taken to evaluate implementation of past recommendations.”

The bill authorizes the D.C. mayor to appoint the members of the newly created medical examiner’s committee and requires that members include representatives of six D.C. government agencies, including the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; the departments of Health; Behavioral Health; Health Care Finance; Human Services; and the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs.

It calls on the Office of LGBTQ Affairs to provide support to other city agencies in developing procedures for identifying transgender people who the agencies have provided services for and who have died.

It also requires the mayor to name as committee members representatives of organizations providing health care and services for the transgender community as well as a social worker specializing in transgender related issues and a college or university representative “conducting research in transgender and gender-diverse mortality trends or fatality prevention.”

Seven other members of the 13-member D.C. Council signed on as co-introducers of the bill. They include Council members Robert White (D-At-Large), Anita Bonds (D-At-Large), Christina Henderson (I-At Large), Matthew Frumin (D-Ward 3), Janese Lewis George (D-Ward 4), Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), and Vincent Gray (D-Ward 7).

Spokespersons for Gray and Bonds told the Blade the two Council members continue to support the bill and would consider any revisions that those who have expressed concern about the bill might suggest.

“The establishment of this committee will continue the District’s leading role in LGBTQIA+ advocacy and legislation,” Pinto states in a letter accompanying her introduction of the bill. “The Committee will be the first entity of its kind in the United States,” according to her letter.

Pinto cites in her letter studies and national data showing that deaths of trans people are disproportionately higher due to a variety of causes, including illness compared to cisgender people in the United States. “Trans women in particular are disproportionately vulnerable to the aforementioned risks, as well as to violence and murder, with one in four trans women likely to be victimized by a hate-related crime,” Pinto said in her letter.

“Although data are limited, some studies suggest that transgender people are ‘twice as likely to die as cisgender people’ due to ‘heart disease, lung cancer, HIV-related illness and suicide,’ with trans women being ‘two times as likely to die compared to cis men and ‘three times as likely’ compared to cis women,” Pinto states in her letter.

In their testimony against the bill, Brooks of Whitman Walker and Whalen of SMYAL said the problems they believe the bill will bring about outweigh the benefits that Pinto says it will provide for the trans community.

“It is improper for the District government to be investigating and determining someone’s gender identity,” Brooks said in his testimony. “This would require District agencies to coordinate investigations into deeply personal characteristics of many people,” he said. “This invasion of privacy is a poor use of the government’s time and energy.”

Brooks stated that the city has existing policies and requirements designed to find ways to improve the lives of transgender and gender diverse residents. He pointed to the LGBTQ Health Data Collection Amendment Act of 2018, which requires the Department of Health to produce a comprehensive report on the health and health disparities faced by the D.C. LGBTQ community. According to Brooks, the Department of Health has not released such a report since 2017.

“We strongly recommend that rather than proposing to spend precious time and scarce resources on a novel and invasive committee, the District should put those resources towards fulfilling existing data collection and reporting obligations,” Brooks states in his testimony.

Whelan of SMYAL expressed similar concerns in her testimony. “Transgender and Gender-Diverse (TGD) people do not need yet another violation of their privacy and exposure to more questions and interrogation for them to provide the reasons for the incredible amount of violence and loss the transgender and gender-diverse community faces,” Whelen says in her testimony.

“What we do need are solutions on how to address the underlying causes of anti-transgender violence, in addition to the barriers that prevent transgender and gender-diverse communities from accessing and maintaining safe and stable housing, and accessing affirming mental health resources,” Whelan adds in her testimony. “What we as a community need is diligent action in a positive direction to actually address the lack of resources, services, and violence towards this community.”

Supporters of the bill might point out that it includes strongly worded language calling for keeping personal information about transgender and gender-diverse people who die confidential and calls for criminal penalties for anyone who violates the confidentiality provision by disclosing the information, including whether a deceased person identified as transgender.

Brooks said strong grounds exist for not enacting the bill despite its privacy provision.

“The collection of sensitive information, particularly for decedents who cannot advocate for their own right to privacy, always raises the potential for inappropriate disclosure regardless of potential penalties,” he said. “The threat of criminal prosecution can be a deterrent to the intentional inappropriate sharing of private information; however, it may not stop accidental or inadvertent disclosure,” he said.

Slatt’s testimony calls for six specific suggested revisions in the bill pertaining to ways the newly created medical examiner committee would obtain information about trans people who die, including the suggestion that the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs become involved in identifying trans people who pass away and be given one or more additional staff members to help support its increased responsibilities under the legislation.

“Members of the ANC Rainbow Caucus have discussed this proposed bill and find that it is a remarkable and historic step towards addressing trans and gender-diverse mortalities and fatalities,” Slatt says in his testimony.

“At a time when trans and gender-diverse people are under attack by municipalities across the nation, the District of Columbia is setting an example on how to create not just a culture of inclusion, but also a culture of belonging for trans residents,” he stated.

Up Next

GLAA announces ratings for D.C. Council candidates

Don't Miss

Billy Porter, Keke Palmer, Ava Max to perform at Capital Pride

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

District of Columbia

Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement

Gay former corrections officer says harassment, discrimination began in 1993

Published

1 day ago

February 16, 2026

Lou Chibbaro Jr.

Deon Jones (Photo courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union)

Deon Jones says he is pleased with the outcome of his anti-gay bias lawsuit against the D.C. Department of Corrections that ended after five years on Feb. 5 with the D.C. government paying him $500,000 in a settlement payment.

The lawsuit, filed on his behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C. and the international law firm WilmerHale, charged that Jones, a Department of Corrections sergeant, had been subjected to years of discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man in clear violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.

A statement released by the ACLU at the time the settlement was announced says Jones, “faced years of verbal abuse and harassment, from co-workers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment.”

The statement adds, “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.:

Jones said the harassment and mistreatment he encountered began in 1993, one year after he first began work at the Department of Corrections and continued for more than 25 years under six D.C. mayors, including current Mayor Muriel Bowser, who he says did not respond to his repeated pleas for help.

Each of those mayors, including Bowser, have been outspoken supporters of the LGBTQ community, but Jones says they did not intervene to change what he calls the homophobic “culture” at the Department of Corrections.

The Department of Corrections, through the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents city agencies against lawsuits, and the mayor’s office, have so far declined to comment on the lawsuit and the half million-dollar settlement the city offered to Jones, who accepted it.

Among other things, the settlement agreement states that Jones would be required to resign from his job at the Department of Corrections. It also declares that “neither the parties’ agreement nor the District government’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. He said the city’s action to pay Jones a half million-dollar settlement “speaks louder than words.”

With that as a backdrop, Jones reflected on the settlement and what he says was his tumultuous 30-year career as an employee at the D.C. Department of Corrections in a Feb. 9 interview with the Washington Blade.

He and Michelman pointed out that Jones was placed on paid administrative leave in April 2022, one year after his lawsuit was filed. Among his upcoming plans, Jones told the Blade, is to publish a podcast that, among other things, will highlight the hardship he faced at the Department of Corrections and advocate for LGBTQ rights.

BLADE: What are your thoughts on this lawsuit settlement which appears very much in your favor?

JONES: That’s great. I’m happy. I’m glad to resign. It’s been a long time coming. It was the worst time it’s ever been. And I have advocated for the community for many, many years. And not only standing up for my rights but for the rights for others in the LGBTQ community.

And I’m just tired now. And my podcast will start soon. And I will continue to advocate for the community.

BLADE: Can you tell a little about that and when it will begin?

JONES: Once in April, once everything is closed my podcast will be starting. And that’s Deon’s Chronicle and Reveal. Yes, my own podcast.

BLADE: Since we have reported your attorney saying you have been on administrative leave since March of 2022, some in the community might be interested in what you have been doing since that time. Did you get another job or were you just waiting for this case to be resolved?

JONES: I was waiting for this to be resolved. I couldn’t work. That would violate policy and procedures of the D.C. government. So, I could not get another job or anything else.

BLADE: You have said under administrative leave you were still getting paid. You were still able to live off of that?

JONES: Yes, I was able to. Yes, sir. I used to do a lot of overtime. As a zone lieutenant for many years, I have supervised over 250 officers. I’ve also supervised over 25,000 inmates in my 30 years.

BLADE: How many years have you been working for the Department of Corrections?

JONES: It’s 30 years all together. I started down at the Lorton facility. Six facilities — I’ve worked for past directors, deputy directors, internal affairs. I’ve done it all.

BLADE: Do you have any plans now other than doing the podcast?

JONES: Well, to just do my podcast and also to write my book and my memoir inside of the house of pain, the house of shame — what I’ve been through. When I start my podcast off it will be stories — Part 1 through Part 4. And I will go back to the Lorton days all the way up to now. When it first started was sexual harassment and discrimination back down at Lorton. And I mean this has just been the worst time around.

BLADE: So, did you first start your work at the Lorton Prison?

JONES: Yes, I was at the central facility, which was the program institution.

MICHELMAN: Just for context. You may remember this, but the Lorton facility was where D.C. incarcerated people were held. So, that was part of the D.C. Department of Corrections.

BLADE: Yes, and that was located in Lorton, Va., is that right?

JONES: Right.

BLADE: Didn’t that close and is the main incarceration facility is now in D.C. itself?

JONES: Yes. And that closed in 2001.

BLADE: I see. And is the main D.C. jail now at a site near the RFK Stadium site?

JONES: Yes, sir. And next-door is the correctional treatment facility as well.

BLADE: So, are you saying the harassment and other mistreatment against you began back when you were working at the Lorton facility?

JONES: At the Lorton central facility. And they used to flash me too. When I say flash me like the residents, the inmates were flashing. And they [the employees] were flashing.

BLADE: What do you mean by flashing?

JONES: They take their penis out and everything else. I mean the sexual harassment was terrible. And I came out then down there. And I continued to advocate for myself and to advocate for other people who I was told were being picked on as well.

BLADE: As best you can recall, where and what year did that happen?

JONES: That was back in 1993 in April of 1993.

BLADE: The mayor’s office has declined to comment on the settlement and payment the city is giving you. Yet they have always said they have a strong policy of nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people in D.C. government agencies. But do you think that was not carried out at the Department of Corrections?

JONES: That’s a blatant reason why — I had 13 anxiety attacks. It was so blatant. Can you imagine? On the airwaves or the walkie-talkies — everybody had a walkie talkie — the captains and the majors and everything. And you transmit it to the command center or something like that. When you finish someone gets on the air and calls you a sissy or a fag.

They received so many complaints, and I also sent the mayor so many emails and begging for help. And they ignored it. They didn’t address any complaints at all. So, that’s bull.

BLADE: But now after you filed your lawsuit and you received this settlement do you think there will be changes there to protect the rights of other LGBTQ employees?

JONES: I hope so, because I have been defending community rights. For many years I have been advocating for different things and different services. And I’ve seen the treatment. There are a lot of mistreatments towards the community over there. And I have taken a stance for a lot of people in the community and protecting their constitutional rights as well as mine.

BLADE: What advice might you have for what the Department of Corrections should do to correct the situation that led to your lawsuit?

JONES: Well, what my advice for the department is they need to go back over their training. And they need to enforce rules against any acts of discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment. They need to enforce that. They’re not enforcing that at all. They’re not doing it at all. And this time it was worse than ever, then I’ve ever seen it. That you would get on the walkie talkie and someone would call you a fag or a sissy or whatever else or do evil things and everything. They are not enforcing what they are preaching. They are not enforcing that.

BLADE: Is there any kind of concluding comment you may want to make?

JONES: Well, I hope that this litigation will be a wakeup call for the department. And also, that it will give someone else the motivation to stand up for their rights. I was blessed to have the ACLU and WilmerHale to protect my constitutional rights. So, I am just really happy. So, I’m hoping that others will stand up for their rights. Because a lot of people in the community that worked there, they were actually afraid. And I had some people who actually quit because of the pressure.

District of Columbia

U.S. Attorney’s Office drops hate crime charge in anti-gay assault

Case remains under investigation and ‘further charges’ could come

Published

7 days ago

February 11, 2026

Lou Chibbaro Jr.

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

D.C. police announced on Feb. 9 that they had arrested two days earlier on Feb. 7 a Germantown, Md., man on a charge of simple assault with a hate crime designation after the man allegedly assaulted a gay man at 14^th and Q Streets, N.W., while using “homophobic slurs.”

But D.C. Superior Court records show that prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C., which prosecutes D.C. violent crime cases, charged the arrested man only with simple assault without a hate crime designation.

In response to a request by the Washington Blade for the reason why the hate crime designation was dropped, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office provided this response: “We continue to investigate this matter and make no mistake: should the evidence call for further charges, we will not hesitate to charge them.”

In a statement announcing the arrest in this case, D.C. police stated, “On Saturday, February 7, 2026, at approximately 7:45 p.m. the victim and suspect were in the 1500 block of 14^th Street, Northwest. The suspect requested a ‘high five’ from the victim. The victim declined and continued walking,” the statement says.

“The suspect assaulted the victim and used homophobic slurs,” the police statement continues. “The suspect was apprehended by responding officers.”

It adds that 26-year-old Dean Edmundson of Germantown, Md. “was arrested and charged with Simple Assault (Hate/Bias).” The statement also adds, “A designation as a hate crime by MPD does not mean that prosecutors will prosecute it as a hate crime.”

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

Prosecutors in the past both in D.C. and other states have said they sometimes decide not to include a hate crime designation in assault cases if they don’t think the evidence is sufficient to obtain a conviction by a jury. In some instances, prosecutors have said they were concerned that a skeptical jury might decide to find a defendant not guilty of the underlying assault charge if they did not believe a motive of hate was involved.

A more detailed arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in Superior Court appears to support the charge of a hate crime designation.

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

District of Columbia

Capital Pride wins anti-stalking order against local activist

Darren Pasha claims action is linked to his criticism of Pride organizers

Published

1 week ago

February 10, 2026

Lou Chibbaro Jr.

Darren Pasha was ordered to stay 100 feet away from Capital Pride officials. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A D.C. Superior Court judge on Feb. 6 partially approved an anti-stalking order against a local LGBTQ activist requested last October by the Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events.

The ruling by Judge Robert D. Okun requires Darren Pasha to stay at least 100 feet away from Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers until the time of a follow up court hearing he scheduled for April 17.

In his ruling at the Feb. 6 hearing, which was virtual rather than held in-person at the courthouse, Okun said he had changed the distance that Capital Pride had requested for the stay-away, anti-stalking order from 200 yards to 100 feet. The court records show that the judge also denied a motion filed earlier by Pasha, who did not attend the hearing, to “quash” the Capital Pride civil case against him.

Pasha told the Washington Blade he suffered an injury and damaged his mobile phone by falling off his scooter on the city’s snow-covered streets that prevented him from calling in to join the Feb. 6 court hearing.

In his own court filings without retaining an attorney, Pasha has strongly denied the stalking related allegations against him by Capital Pride, saying “no credible or admissible evidence has been provided” to show he engaged in any wrongdoing.

The Capital Pride complaint initially filed in court on Oct. 27, 2025, includes an 18-page legal brief outlining its allegations against Pasha and an additional 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by witnesses whose names are blacked out.

“Over the past year, Defendant Darren Pasha (“DSP”) has engaged in a sustained, and escalating course of conduct directed at CPA, including repeated and unwanted contact, harassment, intimidation, threats, manipulation, and coercive behavior targeting CPA staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates,” the Capital Pride complaint states.

In his initial 16-page response to the complaint, Pasha says the Capital Pride complaint appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with the organization and its then president, Ashley Smith, last year.

“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” he said of the complaint.

Smith, who has since resigned from his role as board president, did not respond to a request by the Blade for comment at the time the Capital Pride court complaint was filed against Pasha.

Capital Pride Executive Director Ryan Bos and the attorney representing the group in its legal action against Pasha, Nick Harrison, did not immediately respond to a Blade request for comment on the judge’s Feb. 6 ruling.