SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
WASHINGTON - Firefighter
Vanessa Coleman, previously a Captain with the D.C. Fire &
Emergency Medical Services (F&EMS) Department and a 19-year veteran
of the force, has been fired from her position as a result of blowing
the whistle on wrongful actions taken against her by Department
officials.
"We
all should have the right to free speech and justice, but this is an
unjust action that I will continue to fight," stated Coleman. "High
level fire department officials, including Chief Dennis Rubin and Asst.
Chief Brian Lee, have sought to make me a scapegoat for a fire which
was proven not to be my fault in any way and have retaliated against me
for challenging their orders that I submit to psychological testing. I
have been terminated for blowing the whistle and standing up for what
is right."
The
termination follows last month's decision by the Fire Trial Board, the
Department's so-called internal justice system, that Coleman be demoted
two ranks for failing to acknowledge that an ordered, retaliatory
psychological evaluation, or "fitness for duty" exam, was voluntary. Lawyers for Coleman assert that the order to undergo psychological testing was illegal.
"The
'Trial Board' is a farce, and does not mirror any sort of proper
hearing procedure whatsoever," stated Richard Condit, GAP Senior
Counsel and co-counsel for Coleman. "It was obvious from the beginning
that the decision would not be favorable - this is a hearing process under
the direct control of Asst Chief Brian Lee and the Fire Chief. If you
are blowing the whistle on senior management at the Fire Department you
don't stand a chance of surviving the rigged Trial Board process."
added Condit.
Although
Coleman reported several times as ordered for the psych test, a
particularly heinous form of retaliation, she would not submit to
official pressure to state that she was taking the test "voluntarily."
"Its
common sense that if you are ordered to take a test, you can't
truthfully state that you're taking it voluntarily," stated Karen Gray,
GAP General Counsel and co-counsel for Coleman. "She is being penalized
through departmental actions that are clearly unsupported by law. Our client did nothing wrong - she told the truth about a botched investigation, and now she's paying an unacceptable price."
There
are multiple problems with the fitness-for-duty system involving FEMS.
Notably, Department officials are able to order firefighters to be
tested on a whim, and firefighters may not be given access to the
results and supporting information.
After the decision came down from the Fire Trial Board ordering a
two-rank demotion, Coleman's superiors again ordered her for a
fitness-for-duty examination, which again required an acknowledgement
of her 'voluntary' cooperation. Coleman instead chose to stand up
against this wrongful action and refused to abide the Chief's illegal
order. Coleman was delivered her official notification of termination
by the department last Friday, October 9th - just before a holiday weekend.
"This isn't over," stated Condit. "We will continue with our suit
against the department in federal court and are confident we will
prevail. The actions by departmental officials are palpably improper.
The DC Counsel should take a long look at the abuse of power and the
retaliation that Coleman has had to endure."
Background
Captain
Vanessa Coleman has been steadily retaliated against since March 2008,
stemming from the fallout of the Mt. Pleasant apartment fire in
Washington, D.C. Despite a history beginning as a fire cadet in 1990,
with subsequent promotions to Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain, and
annual performance reviews greater than "satisfactory," Coleman has
been singled out by department officials and made to bear the blame for
the problems stemming from the fire. At the fire, Coleman was directed
away from the basement of the apartment building to the third floor.
This diversion was later found to be of great importance, as fire
officials now believe the fire originated in the basement.
Audio of Coleman being ordered to the third floor can be found at this Web site: https://www.dcfirefeed.com/pleasant.htm
In the months following the Mt. Pleasant fire, then-Battalion chief
John Lee, who ordered Coleman and her crew to the third floor, retired
from the Department.
The retaliation against Coleman that has ensued since the filing is a
laundry list of unacceptable actions that include: citations, a
suspension, failure to support her authority as a Captain, stripped
duties, and a transfer. In July 2008, Coleman received a notice that
she was to report for a psychological evaluation, ordered by Assistant
Chief Brian Lee. Upon reporting for the exam, she requested legal
counsel, but was denied. Unwilling to submit to the exam under the
conditions presented to her, Coleman was directed not to go back to
work and to take sick leave until she was able to take a rescheduled
psychological evaluation.
Months later, in August, Coleman and GAP staff met with F&EMS
officials to discuss the order. At such meeting, according to a memo
written from EMS Deputy General Counsel, Thelma Chichester:
The
Department has offered to hold the pending Order for Cpt. Coleman to
take the Fitness for Duty Examination as well as any administrative
action which resulted from her failure to comply with a direct Order in
abeyance pending the conclusion of the investigation into the charges
of discrimination made by Cpt. Coleman.
After reaching this agreement, Coleman was finally allowed to return to
work. Shortly after this meeting, Coleman received a notice that she
was being charged with insubordination for failing to take the
"fitness-for-duty" exam, as ordered. After refusing to check the
"voluntary" box, Coleman was ordered to stand before the Trial Board
proceeding, which started this past June.
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a 30-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.
One legal expert called it "unquestionably a win for the Trump administration, but on remarkably narrow and modest terms."
Republican-appointed justices handed the second Trump administration its first win at the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, allowing the Department of Education to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in grants intended to help states combat K-12 teacher shortages while a legal battle over the money plays out.
The emergency order was unsigned, but the three liberals—Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—all dissented, and Chief Justice John Roberts noted that he "would deny the application" without offering further explanation. That means the decision came from the other five right-wingers, including three appointees of President Donald Trump.
The decision stems from a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Massachusetts by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general last month after the U.S. Education Department "arbitrarily terminated approximately $600 million in critical grants" for two programs: the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED).
The coalition's initial complaint explains that Congress authorized the funding "to address nationwide teacher shortages and improve teacher quality by educating, placing, and supporting new teachers in hard-to-staff schools, especially in rural and other underserved communities, and in hard-to-staff subjects, such as math and special education."
"The department's actions appear to encompass 'policy objectives' of ending disfavored but lawful efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion—objectives that Congress expressly directed grantees to carry out in creating these programs, including by identifying that these teacher preparation programs should assist 'traditionally underserved' local education agencies... and ensure 'general education teachers receive training in providing instruction to diverse populations, including children with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and children from low-income families," the document details.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—found that the coalition was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and issued the temporary restraining order sought by offiicals in California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin.
However, the country's high court granted a stay on Friday, concluding that the Trump administration "is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed," the plaintiff states "have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running" during the legal fight, and if they "ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum."
In a dissent that was under two pages, Kagan wrote that "nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention. Rather than make new law on our emergency docket, we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way."
Jackson argued in her longer dissent, joined by Sotomayor, that "this court's eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness of the department's actions—even when doing so facilitates the infliction of significant harms on the plaintiff states, and even though the government has not bothered to press any argument that the department's harm‐causing conduct is lawful—is equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate. It is also entirely unwarranted."
In a footnote that drew attention from court watchers, Jackson accused the majority of handing the Trump administration "an early 'win'—a notch in its belt at the start of a legal battle in which the long-term prospects for its eventual success seem doubtful," and expressed concern that "permitting the emergency docket to be hijacked in this way, by parties with tangential legal questions unrelated to imminent harm, damages our institutional credibility."
I am fascinated by this fourth wall–breaking footnote from Justice Jackson criticizing the majority for handing the Trump administration "a notch in its belt at the start of a legal battle in which the long-term prospects for its eventual success seem doubtful." It's more about optics than law ...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern ( @mjsdc.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Trump's billionaire education secretary, former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, welcomed the ruling as "an important step towards realizing the president's agenda to ensure that taxpayer funds that support education go toward meaningful learning and serving our students—not to train teachers in radical racial and gender ideologies."
Meanwhile, Steve Vladeck, CNN's Supreme Court analyst and a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said that Friday's decision "is unquestionably a win for the Trump administration, but on remarkably narrow and modest terms."
"It leaves open the possibility that the plaintiffs are going to win not just this case, but a bunch of other challenges to the government's cancellation of grants, while freezing the order in this specific case. And even that was a bridge too far for Chief Justice Roberts and the three Democratic appointees," he added. "It's a victory for the government, but a short-lived one that may soon be overtaken by far more significant losses in the other pending cases in which Trump has asked the justices to intervene."
CNN noted that the Supreme Court "has already resolved two emergency appeals from the Trump administration" and is still considering others on topics including Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship and to invoke the Alien Enemies Act for mass deportations.
"The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight," said one state Democrat.
Allison Riggs, a Democratic associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, vowed to continue a legal battle over her narrow November victory after a state appeals panel on Friday took a major step toward invalidating more than 60,000 votes.
Riggs' GOP challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost by 734 votes—but rather than conceding, he has sought to have select ballots thrown out. In Friday's 2-1 decision, Republican Judges Fred Gore and John Tyson gave the targeted citizens 15 days to provide documentation to election workers confirming their eligibility to vote. If they don't do so, their votes could be discarded.
"We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people," Riggs said in a statement.
"North Carolinians elected me to keep my seat, and I swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law—so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state and stand in the way of those who would take power from the people," she added.
Since Riggs has recused herself from the case, only six of the North Carolina Supreme Court's justices will hear her appeal, "raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock," The News & Observerreported Friday.
As the Raleigh newspaper detailed:
If that were to happen, the most recent ruling of a lower court prevails, which means Friday's decision from the Court of Appeals could stand.
Riggs has said that if she loses at the state court level, she intends to return the case to federal court.
Republicans already hold a 5 to 2 majority on the state Supreme Court. If Griffin ultimately wins his case and replaces Riggs, that majority will grow to 6 to 1, further complicating Democrats' hopes to retake control of the court in coming elections.
Although the court fight is far from over, Griffin spokesperson Paul Shumaker and North Carolina GOP Chair Jason Simmons cheered Friday's decision, from which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson dissented.
Hampson's dissent begins by pointing out that Griffin "has yet to identify a single voter—among the tens of thousands petitioner challenges in this appeal—who was, in fact, ineligible to vote in the 2024 general election under the statutes, rules, and regulations in place in November 2024 governing that election."
"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution," Hampson argued.
Democratic leaders in North Carolina and beyond also blasted the majority's decision. State Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said that "Judge Tyson and Gore put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters" when they "legitimized Jefferson Griffin's unconstitutional challenge" to tens of thousands of legally cast votes.
Reminder: From my legal and partisan sources, this ultimately gets decided based on how fed courts address military and overseas voters who didn't provide photo ID (and were expressly advised before election that they didn't need to). Why it matters: andersonalerts.substack.com/p/nc-supreme...
[image or embed]
— Bryan Anderson (@bryanranderson.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM
North Carolina House of Representatives Minority Leader Robert Reives (D-54) declared: "We cannot mince words at this point: The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight. Justice Allison Riggs won her election—full stop. Our democracy continues to be tested, but we cannot allow it to break."
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned that "this partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts. If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people."
"North Carolinians chose Allison Riggs to be their North Carolina Supreme Court justice," Martin stressed. "They won't stand for Republicans trying to take their votes away or those of active duty North Carolina military. It's six months past time for Jefferson Griffin to concede this race that he lost."
Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan voting rights organization Common Cause North Carolina, was similarly engaged, saying: "Today's ruling is a disgrace. This poorly conceived decision is an extreme overreach and sides with a sore loser candidate over the citizens of our state. If allowed to stand, the ruling would inject chaos into North Carolina's elections in ways that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and invite similar challenges nationwide."
Phillips continued:
Let's be clear: these North Carolina voters did absolutely nothing wrong. They followed the rules and cast ballots that should count. To say otherwise now is an affront to the rule of law and our Constitution.
If Griffin gets his way, never again will the people of North Carolina be able to have confidence in the outcome of our elections. Instead, Griffin's reckless lawsuit will open the door to an endless stream of other sore loser candidates who will attempt to throw out enough votes until they can cheat their way into office.
This fight is not over. We are confident that the courts will ultimately see Griffin's ploy for what it is: an unconstitutional attack on our freedom to vote.
"The people of North Carolina will continue to protest against Griffin's outrageous attack on our rights," he added, "as we continue our work to protect our family members, friends, and neighbors who are targeted by Griffin's disgraceful scheme."
"How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are," said one lawyer.
A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the return of a Maryland resident who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador last month, according to The Associated Press.
Prior to issuing the ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis called the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia "an illegal act."
The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, gave the Trump administration end of the day of the day on Monday to bring him back to the United States.
Supporters outside the courtroom cheered as the judge handed down her order, according to The Washington Post.
Responding to the ruling on social media, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said: "This is a big win. Now Trump must comply with the judge's order."
Immigration lawyer Ava Benach wrote: "The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are."
The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are.
[image or embed]
— avabenach.bsky.social (@avabenach.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Abrego Garcia was among hundreds of people the administration expelled in mid-March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador after targeting them for alleged gang ties.
In a court papers filed earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting field office director admitted that the removal of Abrego Garcia on March 15 "was an error."
Abrego Garcia was deported despite the fact that in 2019, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that he could not be deported to his native El Salvador because he would likely face gang persecution there.