District of Columbia
Oral arguments held in Casa Ruby civil suit appeals case
Alston Foundation urges judges to overturn dismissal of ‘negligence’ lawsuit
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments May 7 on whether a 2023 decision by a D.C. Superior Court judge dismissing a lawsuit against seven of the eight former board members of the now-defunct Casa Ruby LGBTQ community services center should be overturned.
The Wanda Alston Foundation, an LGBTQ youth housing services group that assumed control over the operations of Casa Ruby in August 2022 under a court appointed receivership role, filed its lawsuit against the former board members in December 2022 under the Casa Ruby name.
It accuses them of violating D.C.’s nonprofit corporations’ law by failing to “hold regular meetings/or maintain official records – thereby exercising no oversight or governance over the organization.”
Among other things, the lawsuit said the former board members failed to take steps to prevent Casa Ruby’s founder and former executive director, Ruby Corado, from embezzling large sums of Casa Ruby funds for personal use.
Corado, who was arrested in March 2024 on multiple embezzlement related charges, pleaded guilty in July 2024 to a single charge of wire fraud under a plea agreement with prosecutors. She is scheduled to be sentenced on July 29, 2025.
The lawsuit called on the court to require Corado and the former board members to pay “restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, receivership fees and expenses, court costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses and any other relief the court deems necessary and proper.”
In May 2023, at the request of defense attorneys, D.C. Superior Court Judge Danya A. Dayson dismissed the lawsuit against seven of the eight former board members but did not dismiss the case against Corado and one of the board members who allegedly received improper financial benefits from Corado.
Dayson stated in her dismissal decision that it was based on her interpretation of a D.C. law that members of an organization’s board of directors can only be held liable for harming an organization like Casa Ruby if they “intentionally, rather than negligently, inflicted harm on Casa Ruby.”
According to Dayson, the law in question also says board members can be held responsible for harming an organization if a “board member intentionally violated a criminal law or that the board member received some amount of money to which they were not entitled.” She states in her decision that the Alston Foundation lawsuit did not provide sufficient evidence that the seven board members committed those types of violations.
Attorneys for the Alston Foundation disputed Dayson’s interpretation of the law in their initial legal brief filed before the D.C. Court of Appeals in February 2024. Among other things, the brief argued that the Alston Foundation’s Third Interim Report in its role as Casa Ruby receiver provides sufficient evidence that the former board members are legally liable for harming Casa Ruby.
That and follow-up briefs and their oral arguments at the May 7, 2025, hearing state that the appeals court can find that the former board members “were deliberately indifferent’ or ‘willfully blind’ to the alleged wrongful conduct of the nonprofit’s executive director amounting to actual knowledge on their part that inaction would harm the non-profit, ultimately and forcibly leading to its financial inability to continue operating.”
A follow-up brief filed by Alston Foundation attorney Theodore Howard argues that the former board members violated Casa Ruby’s by-laws by conducting only one board meeting in six years.
According to the brief, that “allowed Ms. Corado to maintain complete authority over the organization, including by allowing her to unilaterally appoint new Board members” and allowed her “to maintain sole control over Casa Ruby’s bank and financial accounts, even after Ms. Corado cut off access to those accounts to anyone but herself.”
An opposing brief filed by attorney Marlin Grifith, who is representing former board member Miguel Rivera, states that the decision dismissing the lawsuit correctly interpreted the law pertaining to nonprofit corporations.
“The Superior Court did not err…,” the brief states, adding “there are no facts alleged that support a conclusion of reasonable inference that the individual board members acted with actual knowledge that their inaction would cause harm to the organization.”
Howard, the attorney representing the Alston Foundation in its role as Casa Ruby receiver, said the attorneys on both sides of the case are now waiting for the three-judge appeals court panel to issue their decision.
If they rule in favor of Casa Ruby/Alston Foundation, the case will be sent back to the Superior Court for further proceedings on the lawsuit, Howard said. He said negotiations would likely begin for a possible out-of-court settlement.
If the appeals court rules in favor of the former board members by finding they did not intentionally and knowingly inflict harm to Casa Ruby, “then the case, at least as between Casa Ruby [via the Alston Foundation] and the former board of directors, will be over,” Howard said.
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 former Capital Pride volunteer 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.
District of Columbia
D.C. pays $500,000 to settle lawsuit brought by gay Corrections Dept. employee
Alleged years of verbal harassment, slurs, intimidation
The D.C. government on Feb. 5 agreed to pay $500,000 to a gay D.C. Department of Corrections officer as a settlement to a lawsuit the officer filed in 2021 alleging he was subjected to years of discrimination at his job because of his sexual orientation, according to a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C.
The statement says the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Sgt. Deon Jones by the ACLU of D.C. and the law firm WilmerHale, alleged that the Department of Corrections, including supervisors and co-workers, “subjected Sgt. Jones to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man, in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.”
Daniel Gleick, a spokesperson for D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, said the mayor’s office would have no comment on the lawsuit settlement. A spokesperson for the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents the city against lawsuits, said the office has a longstanding policy of not commenting on litigation like the Deon Jones lawsuit.
Bowser and her high-level D.C. government appointees, including Japer Bowles, director of the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs, have spoken out against LGBTQ-related discrimination.
“Jones, now a 28-year veteran of the Department and nearing retirement, faced years of verbal abuse and harassment from coworkers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment,” the ACLU’s statement says.
“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,” it says.
“For years, I showed up to do my job with professionalism and pride, only to be targeted because of who I am,” Jones says in the ACLU statement. “This settlement affirms that my pain mattered – and that creating hostile workplaces has real consequences,” he said.
He added, “For anyone who is LGBTQ or living with a disability and facing workplace discrimination or retaliation, know this: you are not powerless. You have rights. And when you stand up, you can achieve justice.”
The settlement agreement, a link to which the ACLU provided in its statement announcing the settlement, states that plaintiff Jones agrees, among other things, that “neither the Parties’ agreement, nor the District’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.
“But actions speak louder than words,” he told the Blade. “The fact that they are paying our client a half million dollars for the pervasive and really brutal harassment that he suffered on the basis of his identity for years is much more telling than their disclaimer itself,” he said.
The settlement agreement also says Jones would be required, as a condition for accepting the agreement, to resign permanently from his job at the Department of Corrections. ACLU spokesperson Andy Hoover said Jones has been on administrative leave since March 2022. Jones couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
“This is really something that makes sense on both sides,” Michelman said of the resignation requirements. “The environment had become so toxic the way he had been treated on multiple levels made it difficult to see how he could return to work there.”
Top Democrats re-introduce trans bill of rights
A dozen Senegalese men arrested for ‘unnatural acts’
Meet D.C.’s Most Eligible Queer Singles
Local LGBTQ groups, activists to commemorate Black History Month
