Case: Potter v. District of Columbia

1:01-cv-01189 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: May 30, 2001

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenged the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department’s (D.C. Fire’s) grooming policy. The policy sets restrictions on the hair and facial hair of employees. Specifically, it sets restrictions on hair and facial hair length and requires that hair and facial hair be groomed in accordance with the policy. On May 30, 2001, a group of firefighters in D.C. Fire brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Seeking declaratory an…

On May 30, 2001, a group of firefighters in D.C. Fire brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, along with reasonable costs and attorneys fees, the plaintiffs sued the municipality of the District of Columbia. Represented by private counsel and the ACLU of the National Capital Area, they claimed that the policy burdened their sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The case was assigned to Judge James Robinson.

On the same day they filed their complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the policy by the defendant. On June 22, 2001, the district court granted their motion. On December 6, 2001, the United States filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in the case. The motion was unopposed, and the district court granted the motion on December 7, 2001.

On May 22, 2003, the court issued an order, sua sponte, dismissing the case without prejudice for want of prosecution. On June 16, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate that dismissal, and the court granted their motion on July 9, 2003.

On July 7, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment on October 16, 2006. After the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on August 22, 2007. The plaintiffs maintained that the policy violated the RFRA and the First Amendment, but they sought additional relief. Specifically, they asked the court to (i) make plaintiffs whole for losses resulting from their being removed from active duty because of their failure to adhere to the grooming policy and (ii) award compensatory damages.

On September 28, 2007, the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. It found that D.C. Fire’s policy violated the RFRA, and it directed the plaintiffs to file a form of order proposing appropriate further relief. On October 29, 2007, the court issued a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from enforcing the facial hair provisions of its policy against plaintiffs. It also ordered (i) that defendant restore to field duty each plaintiff who was assigned to administrative duty for violating the facial hair policy, (ii) that plaintiffs who shaved their facial hair in order to remain on field duty be allowed to regrow their beards, and (iii) that if any plaintiffs claimed lost income, benefits, or lost or forced sick leave as a result of violating the policy, the parties would confer and seek in good faith to agree upon remedies for such losses.

On October 30, 2007, the defendant appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court on April 23, 2010. [CAN’T FIND OPINION].

The case was reassigned in the district court to Judge Richard J. Leon, and the court referred the case to mediation on January 2, 2013. On October 27, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, in accordance with a settlement agreement between the parties. The court granted the motion on October 11, 2013, and it retained jurisdiction for limited purposes, including adjudicating any alleged violation of the parties’ settlement agreement.

In February 2020, D.C. Fire announced a new facial hair policy to conform with practices recommended by several agencies. The policy recommended against having facial hair so as to ensure a tight fit not only with facemasks but also with medical masks. It prohibited employees from having facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the face piece and the face or interfered with the valve function.

On November 7, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment of civil contempt, claiming that the parties had failed to reach a settlement agreement. on August 31, 2023, the court denied that motion on discretionary grounds. It found that although plaintiffs may have shown that D.C. Fire violated the court’s order by enforcing the 2020 policy (which was nearly identical to the policy plaintiffs originally challenged) and returning plaintiffs to administrative duty, D.C. Fire acted in a reasonably cautious way, under unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances, to keep plaintiffs and the public it served safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. It therefore determined that defendant should not be considered a contemnor for its actions, especially since plaintiffs’ damages were likely to be de minimis.

On October 2, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the court’s order denying their motion for judgment of civil contempt to the D.C. Circuit. The court issued its opinion on January 28, 2025. 126 F.4th 720. It found that the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the legal standards for civil contempt. The court explained that the district court could not exercise discretion in this case. Instead, it was required to determine whether D.C. Fire violated plaintiffs’ rights under the 2007 injunction. Alternatively, the district court could have withheld judgment if it found that recognized defense to contempt applied, but violating an injunction “in a reasonably cautious way” was not a recognized defense to civil contempt. The court vacated the dismissal order and remanded to the district court. The case is ongoing as of February 27, 2025.

	Document
1 1:01-cv-01189	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief	May 30, 2001	May 30, 2001 Complaint
34 1:01-cv-01189	Preliminary Injunction Order	June 22, 2001	June 22, 2001 Order/Opinion
40 1:01-cv-01189	Order	May 22, 2003	May 22, 2003 Order/Opinion
98 1:01-cv-01189	Memorandum	Aug. 11, 2005	Aug. 11, 2005 Order/Opinion 382 F.Supp.2d 35
97 1:01-cv-01189	Order	Aug. 11, 2005	Aug. 11, 2005 Order/Opinion
147 1:01-cv-01189	Amended Complaint	Aug. 22, 2007	Aug. 22, 2007 Complaint
157 1:01-cv-01189	Permanent Injunction and Order	Oct. 29, 2007	Oct. 29, 2007 Order/Opinion
180 1:01-cv-01189	Judgment	April 23, 2010	April 23, 2010 Order/Opinion
217 1:01-cv-01189	Consent Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice	Oct. 7, 2013	Oct. 7, 2013 Pleading / Motion / Brief
224 1:01-cv-01189	Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment of Civil Contempt	Nov. 7, 2022	Nov. 7, 2022 Pleading / Motion / Brief

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff CALVERT L. POTTER, plaintiff TARICK A. ALI, plaintiff ROBERT ANTHONY ELLERBE, plaintiff SHANNON M. LYONS, plaintiff WILLIE C. GAFNEY, plaintiff HASSAN A. UMRANI (jeb) (zbj). (Entered: 06/01/2001)	May 30, 2001	May 30, 2001 Clearinghouse
	SUMMONS (1) issued for defendant DC (jeb)	May 30, 2001	May 30, 2001 PACER
2	MOTION filed by plaintiffs for preliminary injunction ; exhibits (9). (jeb) (zbj). (Entered: 06/01/2001)	May 30, 2001	May 30, 2001 PACER
5	MOTION filed by plaintiff for expedited hearing (tb) (Entered: 06/08/2001)	June 1, 2001	June 1, 2001 PACER
7	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of summons and complaint executed on 5/30/01 upon defendant DC (tb) (Entered: 06/12/2001)	June 1, 2001	June 1, 2001 PACER
3	MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC to extend time to 6/13/01 for preliminary injunction (cas) (Entered: 06/07/2001)	June 6, 2001	June 6, 2001 PACER
4	ORDER by Judge James Robertson: granting motion to extend time to 6/13/01 to respond to preliminary injunction motion [3-1] by DC; motion hearing set for 10:30 6/22/01. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/08/2001)	June 8, 2001	June 8, 2001 PACER
6	ORDER by Judge James Robertson: granting pltf.'s consented request for leave to file a supplemental declaration of Raymond Sneed as Exhibit J to memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/08/2001)	June 8, 2001	June 8, 2001 PACER
21	NOTICE OF FILING DECLARATION of Raymond Sneed by plaintiffs CALVERT L. POTTER, TARICK A. ALI, ROBERT ANTHONY ELLERBE, SHANNON M. LYONS, WILLIE C. GAFNEY, and HASSAN A. UMRANI in support of motion for preliminary judgment. (ag) (Entered: 10/22/2001)	June 8, 2001	June 8, 2001 PACER
8	MEMORANDUM by defendant DC in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] by plaintiffs; exhibits (1) (tb) (Entered: 06/19/2001)	June 13, 2001	June 13, 2001 PACER
11	REPLY by plaintiffs in support of their motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] by plaintiffs (bjsp) (Entered: 06/20/2001)	June 15, 2001	June 15, 2001 PACER
9	MOTION filed by defendant DC for order allowing live testimony at hearing set for 6/22/01 (bjsp) (Entered: 06/19/2001)	June 18, 2001	June 18, 2001 PACER
10	ORDER by Judge James Robertson: denying motion for order allowing live testimony at hearing set for 6/22/01 [9-1] by DC. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/19/2001)	June 19, 2001	June 19, 2001 PACER
12	NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC of a proposed order which was omitted from defendant's memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (order sent to chambers) (bjsp) Modified on 06/21/2001 (Entered: 06/21/2001)	June 19, 2001	June 19, 2001 PACER
13	ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1-1] by defendant DC .; jury demand (jf) (Entered: 06/22/2001)	June 21, 2001	June 21, 2001 PACER
	MOTION HEARING before Judge James Robertson: granted motion for expedited hearing [5-1] by plaintiffs, granted motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] by plaintiffs. Pltfs. are to be restored to duty. Reporter: Dennis Dinkel (mlp)	June 22, 2001	June 22, 2001 PACER
34	ORDER by Judge James Robertson: granting pltfs.' motion for preliminary injunction. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/09/2002)	June 22, 2001	June 22, 2001 Clearinghouse
14	TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 6/22/01. Reporter: Dennis A. Dinkel Official Court Reporter Room 6818 U.S. Courthouse (cas) (Entered: 08/14/2001)	Aug. 13, 2001	Aug. 13, 2001 PACER
15	MOTION filed by defendant DC for partial judgment, and for declaratory judgment (cas) Modified on 02/20/2002 (Entered: 08/30/2001)	Aug. 29, 2001	Aug. 29, 2001 PACER
16	NOTICE by defendant DC pursuan to FED. R. CIV. P. 24(C) and 28 U.S.C. 2403 of defendant's drawing into question the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et seq. (cas) (Entered: 09/05/2001)	Sept. 4, 2001	Sept. 4, 2001 PACER
17	STIPULATED ORDERby Judge James Robertson : extending time to 10/3/01 for pltfs. to respond to deft. D.C.'s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and for declaratory judgment. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/14/2001)	Sept. 14, 2001	Sept. 14, 2001 PACER
18	RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment [15-2] by DC; Exhibit (1). (tth) (Entered: 10/04/2001)	Oct. 3, 2001	Oct. 3, 2001 PACER
19	MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC for status conference, and to extend time to reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings to pending status conference (ag) (Entered: 10/10/2001)	Oct. 9, 2001	Oct. 9, 2001 PACER
20	ORDER by Judge James Robertson: granting motion for status conference [19-1] by DC; status hearing set for 4:00 10/29/01 ; counsel for the United States shall attend this conference, in the event that the U.S. wishes to exercise its statutory right of intervention in this matter; the time for D.C. to serve and file its reply memorandum is enlarged to a time to be determined at this status conference. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/16/2001)	Oct. 16, 2001	Oct. 16, 2001 PACER
	STATUS HEARING before Judge James Robertson: USA to file motion to intervene and to file appropriate documents by 12/6/01; response by D.C. to motion and documents filed by USA by 12/20/01; reply by USA to response of D.C. due 1/3/02; dates are subject to consent extensions. Reporter: Bill McAllister (mlp)	Oct. 29, 2001	Oct. 29, 2001 PACER
22	STIPULATED ORDER by Judge James Robertson: extending time to 12/10/01 for U.S.A. to file response to deft. D.C.'s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and for declaratory judgment. (N) (mlp) Modified on 12/05/2001 (Entered: 12/05/2001)	Dec. 5, 2001	Dec. 5, 2001 PACER
23	MOTION filed for USA to intervene (ag) (Entered: 12/07/2001)	Dec. 6, 2001	Dec. 6, 2001 PACER
24	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor-deft. USA by Thomas E. Caballero (ag) (Entered: 12/07/2001)	Dec. 6, 2001	Dec. 6, 2001 PACER
25	ORDER by Judge James Robertson: granting unopposed motion for USA to intervene [23-1]. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/07/2001)	Dec. 7, 2001	Dec. 7, 2001 PACER
26	MEMORANDUM by intervenor-deft. USA in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [15-1] by DC (ag) (Entered: 12/11/2001)	Dec. 10, 2001	Dec. 10, 2001 PACER
27	NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs, defendant, and intervenor-deft. of stipulation for extension of time regarding the filing of deft.'s reply to the P&A's of the pltfs. and the U.S.A. in opposition to deft.'s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and for declaratory judgment and the filing of any surreplies thereto. (mlp) (Entered: 12/21/2001)	Dec. 21, 2001	Dec. 21, 2001 PACER
28	STIPULATED ORDER by Judge James Robertson: deft. to reply to P&A's of pltfs. and U.S.A. in opposition to deft.'s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and for declaratory judgment by 12/24/02; filing of surreply briefs is extended until and including 1/7/02. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/21/2001)	Dec. 21, 2001	Dec. 21, 2001 PACER
29	REPLY by defendant DC in support of motion for partial summary judgment [15-1] by DC, motion for declaratory judgment [15-2] by DC (cas) (Entered: 12/27/2001)	Dec. 24, 2001	Dec. 24, 2001 PACER
33	SURREPLY by intervenor-deft. USA to their motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and for declaratory judgment. (Copy of pleading, Original misplaced) (ks) (Entered: 02/25/2002)	Jan. 7, 2002	Jan. 7, 2002 PACER
30	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant DC by Jonathan F. Potter (bm) (Entered: 01/14/2002)	Jan. 11, 2002	Jan. 11, 2002 PACER
31	MOTION filed by defendant DC for hearing on motion (bm) (Entered: 01/14/2002)	Jan. 11, 2002	Jan. 11, 2002 PACER
	SCHEDULING NOTICE: oral argument set for 1:45 2/20/02 before Judge James Robertson in Courtroom 16. (mlp)	Feb. 5, 2002	Feb. 5, 2002 PACER
32	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor-deft. USA by Theodore C. Hirt (aet) (Entered: 02/08/2002)	Feb. 5, 2002	Feb. 5, 2002 PACER
	MOTION HEARING held before Judge James Robertson: granted motion for hearing on motion [31-1] by DC, finding motion to extend time to reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings to pending status conference by DC [19-2] moot, withdrawing by DC motion for partial judgment [15-1], withdrawing by DC motion for declaratory judgment [15-2]. Reporter: Dennis Dinkel (mlp)	Feb. 20, 2002	Feb. 20, 2002 PACER
35	MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT/REPORT PURSUANT TO L.R. 16 filed by plaintiff, defendant. (aet) (Entered: 04/06/2002)	April 2, 2002	April 2, 2002 PACER

Case: Potter v. District of Columbia

1:01-cv-01189 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details