District of Columbia
Trans employee awarded $930,000 in lawsuit against D.C. McDonald’s
Jury finds franchise failed to stop harassment, retaliation by staff
A D.C. Superior Court jury on Aug. 15 ordered a company that owned and operated a McDonald’s restaurant franchise in Northwest Washington to pay $930,000 in damages to a transgender employee who charged in a lawsuit that she was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of her gender identity in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.
The lawsuit, which was filed in January 2021 by attorneys representing Diana Portillo Medrano, says Medrano was first hired to work at the McDonald’s at 5948 Georgia Ave., N.W. in 2011 as a customer service representative and was recognized and promoted for good work until she began to transition as a trans woman two years later.
It says she was fired in 2016 after she filed a discrimination complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights on grounds that she did not have legal authorization to work in the U.S. as an immigrant from El Salvador. One of her attorneys, Jonathan Puth, said the jury agreed with the lawsuit’s allegation that the reason given for the firing was a “pretext” and the real reason was retaliation for her discrimination complaint.
Puth said evidence was presented during the eight-day civil trial that the McDonald’s had knowingly hired other immigrant employees who did not have legal authorization to work and never held that against them.
“Despite a successful five-year career with McDonald’s marked by raises, promotions, and awards and absence of discipline, Plaintiff Diana Medrano’s supervisors and co-workers subjected her to a barrage of taunts, laughter, ridicule, and harassment because she is a transgender woman,” the lawsuit states.
“Managers and supervisors routinely referred to her as male despite her expressed request that they respect her gender identity as female, encouraging co-workers to harass her relentlessly in like fashion,” it says. “When she complained to her managers, they claimed Ithat the harassment was justified because she hadn’t legally changed her name,” the lawsuit’s complaint continues.
“After she formalized and elevated her complaints, Defendants fired her on pretextual grounds. Defendants discriminated against Ms. Medrano because of her gender identity and retaliated against her in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act,” the lawsuit complaint states.
The lawsuit names as defendants International Golden Foods LLC and MCI Golden Foods LLC, two companies based in Burke, Va. that it says were owned and operated by Luis Gavignano, who is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit says the two companies held the franchise rights to own and operate the McDonald’s where Medrano worked.
The Washington Blade’s attempts to reach a spokesperson for the two companies and for Gavignano as well as two of the attorneys that represented them in contesting the lawsuit through email and phone messages were unsuccessful.
In a nine-page written answer to the lawsuit filed Feb. 12, 2021, on behalf of International Golden Foods, which is referred to as IGF, attorneys Amy M. Heerink and Kelvin Newsome dispute the allegations that Medrano was targeted for discrimination and harassment because of her gender identity.
The written answer to the complaint highlights the company’s claim that Medrano was fired because she didn’t have legal authority to work in the U.S. It refers to the company’s personnel official, Carla Vega, who informed Medrano that she could no longer work for the McDonald’s outlet.
“IGF admits that Ms. Vega informed Plaintiff that her employment had to be terminated due to Plaintiff’s voluntary and unprompted statement during the investigation that she was not authorized to work in the United States,” the written answer to the lawsuit states. “IGF admits that Plaintiff’s employment was terminated based on her ineligibility to work in the United States,” it says.
“The jury clearly found that IGF continually used unauthorized employees, hired and employed unauthorized workers knowingly,” Puth, Madrano’s attorney, told the Blade. “And they never fired anyone for that reason at any of their stores except for Diana,” Puth said.
“And so, the jury found that the reason given was a pretext for retaliation,” he said. “That was what was motivating them. They were motivated to retaliate against her because she kept complaining about discrimination.”
Puth noted that Medrano initially filed her complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and was represented at that time by an attorney with Whitman-Walker Health’s legal clinic. He said Whitman-Walker later referred her to his law firm, Correia & Puth, after determining the case could not be resolved at the Office of Human Rights.
The jury’s verdict of $930,000 in damages included $700,000 in punitive damages and $230,000 in damages for the emotional distress Medrano suffered due to the discrimination and harassment to which she was subjected.
A statement released by the law firm representing her says the action by the jury is believed to be the first jury verdict in a transgender employment discrimination case under the D.C. Human Rights Act.
Attorney Puth and his law firm partner, attorney Andrew Adelman, were the attorneys of record representing Medrano in her lawsuit.
“When you are sure of what you have experienced, no matter how much time passes, the truth will come to light,” Medrano said in the statement released by her attorneys. “Our truth is our best weapon to achieve justice,” she said. “It is truth, justice, and faith in God that have helped me get here.”
In his law firm’s statement, Puth called the jury’s verdict a vindication of Medrano’s 11-year battle for her legal rights.
“Diana is our hero,” he said. “She stood up for her rights in the face of terrible harassment and kept fighting even after she was fired for doing so. This verdict puts other employers on notice that tolerating harassment of transgender employees is both unlawful and costly.”
Puth said earlier this year Medrano was approved for U.S. political asylum based on discrimination and harassment she faced in El Salvador. He said she is currently working full-time as a counselor for Empoderate, an LGBTQ health organization providing services for the Latina/Latino community that is affiliated with the D.C.-based La Clinica del Pueblo.
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
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 law 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
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 14th 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 14th 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
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.
European Parliament resolution backs ‘full recognition of trans women as women’
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
Home is where the heart is
‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
Magic is happening for Round House’s out stage manager
McPike wins special election for Va. House of Delegates
Top Democrats re-introduce trans bill of rights
Shooter who killed 7 people inside Canada school was transgender
Just when you think Trump can’t sink any lower, he does
