Washington, D.C.
State Protections and Legal Framework
-
State constitutional guarantees regarding right to education
The District of Columbia is not a state and does not have an effective state constitution.
Case law and legislative history defining and interpreting the right to education
State constitutional protections regarding non-discrimination and equity
DC Human Rights Act
The D.C. Human Rights Act (D.C. Code §§ 2-1401-1404) (the “D.C. HRA”) broadly outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, genetic information, disability, source of income, sealed eviction record, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, place of residence or business, status as a victim or family member of a victim of domestic violence, a sexual offense, or stalking, and homeless status. (D.C. Code § 2-1401.) This protection is broader than federal law, which establishes the following protected classes in the education context: race, color, national origin, language, sex, religion, and disability. (See U.S. Dep’t Just. Civ. Rts. Div., Types Of Educational Opportunities Discrimination (Jan. 31, 2025) (https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-discrimination).
The D.C. HRA prohibits an educational institution from taking the following action:
(1) denying, restricting, or abridging or condition the the use of, or access to, any of its facilities, services, programs, or benefits of any program or activity to any person otherwise qualified, wholly or partially, for a discriminatory reason, based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, political affiliation, source of income, disability, or homeless status of any individual; or
(2) making or using a written or oral inquiry, or form of application for admission, that elicits or attempts to elicit information, or to make or keep a record, concerning the race, color, religion, or national origin of an applicant for admission, except as permitted by regulations of the Office. D.C. Code § 2-1402.03(b).
The D.C. HRA defines an “educational institution” to mean “any public or private institution including an academy, college, elementary or secondary school, extension course, kindergarten, nursery, school system or university; and a business, nursing, professional, secretarial, technical, or vocational school; and includes an agent of an educational institution.” D.C. Code § 2–1401.02.
The D.C. HRA further prohibits the District of Columbia from prescribing minimum and maximum age limits for appointment to the police officer and firefighter cadet programs. D.C. Code § 2–1402.42(b)
However, the D.C. HRA does not prohibit an organization that was opened for educational purposes, and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious or political organization, from “limiting employment, or admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or political persuasion as is calculated by the organization to promote the religious or political principles for which it is established or maintained.” (D.C. Code § 2-1411.03(b).)
Additionally, the D.C. HRA states that its prohibitions regarding sex discrimination in admission policy do not apply to “any private undergraduate college or to any private preschool, elementary or secondary school; except that, when any of the above exempted colleges offers a course nowhere else available in the District, opportunity for admission to that course must be open to students of both sexes who otherwise meet lawful requirements for admission.” D.C. Code § 2–1402.42(a).
The D.C. HRA establishes that “[a]ny person or organization, whether or not an aggrieved party” may file a complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights. This complaint must be filed within 1 year of occurrence or the discovery of the discriminatory practice D.C. Code § 2–1403.04. The D.C. HRA additionally prohibits action to coerce, threaten, retaliate against, or interfere with any person exercising rights under the Act. D.C. Code § 2–1402.61.
-
State law equivalents to Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and the Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)
Additional state civil rights protections that go beyond federal requirements (e.g., protections for LGBTQ+ students, multilingual learners, undocumented students)
State law protections regarding color of law or pattern/practice liability for law enforcement in schools
Anti-discrimination protections under state human rights statutes
Private right of action provisions under state civil rights and human rights statutes
Identify whether state anti-discrimination laws also prohibit discrimination caused by disparate impact. If yes, does the state law allow a private right of action for disparate impact claims?
-
Is the right provided by state law conferred on the student, parent/guardian, or both? In other words, who can bring a claim under this law?
Does the specified law or policy provide protections against retaliation? What are the elements of a retaliation claim? Are protections against retaliation clearly spelled out in the law or policy?
Statute of limitations for filing education-related state civil rights complaints (or state civil rights complaints broadly) or state human rights complaints?
How do I file a complaint about discrimination in a K-12 public school in Washington, D.C.?
Office of the State Superintendent of Education - Office of Dispute Resolution
The District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education (“OSSE”) is charged with raising the quality of education for all DC residents, serves as the District’s liaison to the U.S. Department of Education, and works closely with the District’s traditional and public charter schools to achieve its key functions, including providing resources and support to assist the District’s most vulnerable student populations, and maintaining the District of Columbia Office of Dispute Resolution (“ODR”) in line with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
ODR is responsible for the conduct of special education due process hearings. In furtherance of this responsibility, ODR establishes and maintains procedures to ensure that parents of children with disabilities and public educational agencies have an opportunity to seek an impartial due process hearing to resolve disagreements over the identification, evaluation, educational placement of a child with disabilities, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to children with disabilities or suspected of having disabilities.
ODR oversees special education due process hearings, which are administrative proceedings during which the parties are given the opportunity to present witnesses, documentary evidence, and oral and written arguments to an Impartial Hearing Officer in support of their respective positions on disputed special education issues. The Impartial Hearing Officer then issues a written decision concerning the matters in dispute.
-
Who is eligible to file (students, parents, advocates, others)?
Parties to a due process hearing may include the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of the child, or an adult student, and the public agency responsible for providing education to children with disabilities. Public agencies include the state education agency (“SEA”), LEA, and in the case of children 0 to 2 years old, Early Intervention Services provider (“EIS”), or Lead Agency representative. A parent/legal guardian may represent himself or herself throughout a due process proceeding, which is called proceeding pro se. A parent or legal guardian may be represented by counsel throughout a due process proceeding. A parent may also be accompanied and advised, but not represented, by any other individual with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities.
Are there other administrative processes someone may have to exhaust before initiating a complaint? (i.e., going through school’s, district’s, or other agency’s process first, etc.)
To obtain a due process hearing, the parent/legal guardian or public agency must file a due process complaint. The party requesting a hearing (parent or public agency) may, but is not required to, file a Notice of Due Process Complaint, a model form developed by ODR to meet these legal requirements. Parties initiating a complaint under the IDEA must provide a completed administrative due process complaint notice to the LEA and/or SEA, whichever agency the complaint is filed against. The OSSE is the SEA for the District of Columbia. In addition, a copy of the completed complaint must be provided by email to email Hearing.Office@dc.gov or fax to (202) 478-2956 or by hand delivery to ODR at: Office of the State Superintendent of Education Office of Dispute Resolution 1050 First St. NE, Third Floor Washington DC 20002.
How to initiate the process (relevant websites, standard forms, submission locations)
Can complaints be filed anonymously or confidentially?
D.C. Muni. Regs. § 3030.1, in line with IDEA and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), (20 U.S.C. § 1232g), requires that the parent of a child with a disability be given the opportunity to inspect, review, and to copy, at no cost to the parent, all of the child's records relating to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement, and the provision of FAPE. D.C. Muni. Regs. § 3030.1 also requires the LEA to ensure the confidentiality of personally identifiable information in accordance with IDEA and FERPA. Prior to issuing a determination, the ODR Hearing Officer will redact personally identifiable information from the determination.
Pursuant to IDEA, “personally identifiable information” includes the following information: (a)The address of the child; (b) the address of the child; (c) a personal identified, such as the child’s social security number or student number; or (d) a list of personal characteristics or other information that would make it possible to identify the child with reasonable certainty.
Pursuant to FERPA, “personally identifiable information” covers the release of personal information in any form that would make the student’s identity easily traceable, including but is not limited to: (a) the student’s name; (b) the name of the student’s parent or other family members; (c) the address of the student or student’s family; (d) a personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record; (e) other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name; (f) other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or (g) information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates.
ODR also follows FERPA by requiring the redaction of “directory information,” defined by FERPA as the “student’s name; address; telephone listing; electronic mail address; photograph; date and place of birth; major field of study; grade level; enrollment status (e.g., undergraduate or graduate, full-time or part-time); dates of attendance; participation in officially recognized activities and sports; weight and height of members of athletic teams; degrees, honors, and awards received; and the most recent educational agency or institution attended.”
Are there language access requirements for complaint processes?
ODR procedures align with 34 CFR § 300.512(a), 34 CFR § 303.444(a), and D.C. Muni. Regs. § 3051.1a by providing a party the ‘Right to an Interpreter’: if the primary language of a party is a language other than English, an interpreter will be provided by ODR for the hearing, free of charge. ODR Standard Operating Procedures Manual §§ 505-509 of ODR Standard Operating Procedures outline language access procedures. ODR Standard Operating Procedures Manual § 505 states that “ODR shall provide oral or American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation services to a party, without cost and upon request, for persons seeking information regarding dispute resolution services or participating in a due process hearing, mediation, or Facilitated IEP or resolution meeting. The party whose primary language is other than English is free to have their own interpreter present for confidential communications with their counsel; ODR is not required to incur the cost for these interpretation services.”
Are there known barriers to accessing enforcement (filing fees, documentation requirements)?
Can complainants have advocates or legal representation?
Under D.C. Muni. Regs. § 3051.1, a party to a due process hearing has the right to: (a) be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities; (b) present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses; (c) prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed to all parties no later than five business days before the hearing; (d) obtain a written or, at the option of the parent, electronic verbatim record of the hearing, at no cost to the parent; and (e) obtain written or, at the option of the parent, electronic findings of fact and decisions at no cost to the parent.
Are complainants entitled to legal representation or other advocates to file or at any point in the process?
-
What are the required elements of the civil rights claim?
All parties must meet the requirements for service set forth in 34 CFR § 300.508(a) that require either party, or the attorney representing a party, to provide the other party and ODR with a copy of the due process complaint. Those requirements provide that the request to initiate a due process hearing must include: (a) the name of the child; (b) the address of the residence of the child; unless the child’s address of residence is not available or able to be disclosed (i.e., because the child is a District of Columbia ward or experiencing homelessness); (c) the name of the parent initiating the hearing; (d) the address of the parent initiating the hearing; (e) the name of the LEA in which the child is enrolled and the name of the LEA or public agency against which the complaint is being filed, if different; (f) the name of the school the child is attending; or the name of the EIS provider servicing the child; (g) the name of the school against which the complaint is being filed; (h) a description of the nature of the dispute, including facts relating to the dispute; and (i) a proposed resolution to the dispute to the extent known and available to the parent at the time.
Who reviews claims and what timeframes apply?
Unless otherwise provided by law or regulation, the due process complaint must allege a violation that occurred not more than two years before the date the parent/legal guardian, public agency, or EIS provider knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the due process complaint.
The two-year limitation period shall not apply to a parent/legal guardian if the parent was prevented from filing a due process complaint due to (1) specific misrepresentations by the LEA or EIS provider that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint; or (2) the LEA, Lead Agency, or EIS provider’s withholding of information from the parent that was required under this subchapter to be provided to the parent. These exceptions do not limit the right of the parties to rely upon other applicable exceptions to the limitation period.
What type of investigation may occur?
Who participates in investigations?
Are complainants entitled to a hearing of any kind? If yes, what are complainants entitled to during the hearing?
All special education due process hearing participants, observers and witnesses have the right to be treated with civility and respect by other parties and the Impartial Hearing Officer. The Impartial Hearing Officer has the responsibility for maintaining the integrity and orderly conduct of the hearing process, ensuring that the rights of all parties are protected, and maintaining an atmosphere conducive to impartiality and fairness at all times. When appropriate, the Impartial Hearing Officer may exclude any person, halt or suspend a hearing, consider a referral to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel at the DC Bar, and/or summon appropriate law enforcement authorities to address any inappropriate conduct or misbehavior by any person that disrupts a hearing.
The Impartial Hearing Officer will attempt to ensure that all parties have an adequate opportunity to present their case. At the beginning of the hearing, the Impartial Hearing Officer will turn on a recorder to make an audio record of the hearing, and after identifying the case and the parties for the record, briefly explain how the hearing will proceed. The Impartial Hearing Officer may then clarify the issues to be decided by discussing the case with the parties (and reviewing the pre-hearing conference stipulations). The Impartial Hearing Officer will ask the parties whether they have discussed settlement of the case. The Impartial Hearing Officer may provide the parties an opportunity to discuss settlement off the record or to request a mediator, if desired by both parties. The Impartial Hearing Officer will ask whether there are preliminary issues to be decided before the hearing commences, and then will rule on accepting into evidence the documents that the parties have presented. The Impartial Hearing Officer will determine the order in which the witnesses will be presented.
Once preliminary matters are completed, the parties may be given an opportunity to make opening statements. During the hearing, opening statements should provide the Impartial Hearing Officer with a brief summary of the parties' positions on the issues. Following opening statements, the party presenting first will call its witnesses. Oral evidence may be taken only after an oath or affirmation is administered and may be provided via telephone.
After one party has presented its witnesses and other evidence, the other party/parties will call their witnesses. Each party will be given an opportunity to ask questions of the other party’s witnesses, and the Impartial Hearing Officer may also ask questions of the witnesses. An Impartial Hearing Officer may also allow parties to present rebuttal evidence. The scope of rebuttal testimony is largely within the discretion of the Impartial Hearing Officer. The length of the due process hearing can vary, but the Impartial Hearing Officer must run the hearing efficiently. At the end of the hearing, each party is allowed to make a closing statement. The Impartial Hearing Officer may also continue the hearing to request written briefs on particular legal issues and schedule additional oral argument, if necessary. Parties may also request to submit written closing arguments; however, no request for written closing statements or briefs shall be grounds for extending the timeline for issuing a hearing decision without the express consent of the parties/counsel. After closing statements are presented, the hearing record is closed. The Impartial Hearing Officer then must prepare a written decision, which will be provided to all parties.
In a special education due process hearing occurring pursuant to IDEA, the party who filed for the hearing shall bear the burden of production and the burden of persuasion, except for the following two circumstances:
where there is a dispute about the appropriateness of the child’s individual educational program or placement, or of the program or placement proposed by the public agency, the public agency shall hold the burden of persuasion on the appropriateness of the existing or proposed program or placement; provided that the party requesting the due process hearing shall retain the burden of production and shall establish a prima facie case before the burden of persuasion falls on the public agency. The burden of persuasion shall be met by a preponderance of the evidence.
where a party seeks tuition reimbursement for unilateral placement, the party seeking reimbursement shall bear the burden of production and the burden of persuasion on the appropriateness of the unilateral placement; provided that the Impartial Hearing Officer shall have the authority to bifurcate a hearing regarding a unilateral placement; provided further, that if the Impartial Hearing Officer determines that the program offered by the public agency is appropriate, it is not necessary to inquire into the appropriateness of the unilateral placement.
What privacy/confidentiality protections exist?
Are school districts required to publicly post civil rights complaint procedures?
-
What is the appeals process, if any?
The decision issued by the Impartial Hearing Officer is final, except that any party aggrieved by the decision of the Impartial Hearing Officer shall have ninety days from the date the decision of the Impartial Hearing Officer is issued to file a civil action, with respect to the issues presented at the due process hearing, in a district court of the United States or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as provided in 34 CFR § 300.516(b) and 34 CFR § 303.448(b).
Are remedies legally enforceable once a violation is found?
Are there other administrative processes that must be exhausted before taking legal action?
Do state agencies publish complaint outcome data?
Consistent with 34 CFR § 300.514(c)(2) and 34 CFR § 303.445(d), ODR must make the HODs available to the public by posting all decisions issued within the previous five years to OSSE’s website, after redacting all PII as required by ODR’s redaction policy. ODR’s redaction policy can be found on OSSE’s website at osse.dc.gov/publication/officedispute-resolution-redaction-policy. All earlier decisions are available upon written request to ODR.
What enforcement mechanisms exist for non-compliance?
State Attorney General Enforcement Actions
-
Has the AG taken civil rights actions involving education in the past 5 years?
In addition to forming a Civil Rights section within the OAG, the D.C. Attorney General has taken several civil rights actions involving education in the past five years.
On July 7, 2020, D.C. Attorney General Racine joined a coalition of six Attorneys General in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education seeking to block the Department’s interim final rule, which, according to the D.C. OAG’s press release, “could divert $3.8 million away from taxpayer-funded public schools in the District’s poorest neighborhoods to private institutions.”
On October 21, 2020, D.C. Attorney General Racine filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Washington Hebrew Congregation (“WHC”), a synagogue that also operates a fee-based childcare center. According to the D.C. OAG’s press release, WHC “routinely ignore[ed] District laws designed to protect children and creating an environment ripe for abuse . . . by placing children in the care of unqualified, unsupervised staff, operating in violation of its license, and misleading parents about the safety of its programs. In 2018, WHC’s childcare center disclosed allegations that children had been sexually abused by an assistant teacher. OAG is seeking relief for harmed families, a court order to ensure WHC complies with District law moving forward, and civil penalties to deter WHC from engaging in misconduct in the future.”
On June 29, 2021, D.C. Attorney General Racine announced that an “area before-and-after-school childcare program will be required to overhaul its business practices after an investigation found the company misled and deceived parents about late fees, auto-enrollment payments, and other charges.” According to the D.C. OAG’s press release, the OAG investigated allegations that “childcare program, KCE Champions LLC (“Champions”) – which operates at 21 schools in the District – [] illegally and unfairly deceiving parents of children at the program. OAG specifically alleged Champions failed to adequately disclose late fees and charged those fees before the completion of services, dis-enrolled children if payments were not made for two weeks, excessively called parents including at work to collect overdue funds, and failed to get clear authorization for enrolling parents in automated payment withdrawals.”
On August 4, 2022, D.C. Attorney General Racine led a coalition of 16 Attorneys General in opposing Florida’s recently enacted and discriminatory “Don’t Say Gay” law which the D.C. OAG’s press release explains “prevents classroom discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity, posing a serious threat to LGBTQ+ students who are particularly vulnerable to the harms caused by discrimination.”
On December 23, 2022, D.C. Attorney General Racine led a coalition of 18 Attorneys General in again opposing Florida’s discriminatory “Don’t Say Gay” law. The D.C. OAG’s press release explains that the brief “challenges Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education Act,” otherwise known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which outlaws “classroom instruction” on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through Grade 3 entirely. The law also requires that the state education agency write new classroom instructions for standards that must be followed by Grades 4 through 12. But the law does not define many of its key terms, like “classroom instruction,” so Florida teachers are already censoring themselves out of fear of the law. Indeed, the law allows a parent to bring a civil claim against a school district to enforce its vague prohibitions.”
On October 5, 2023, D.C. Attorney General Schwalb announced that, along with 49 other Attorneys General, the OAG “reached a settlement with software company Blackbaud, which provides software to nonprofits (primarily charities and schools), for its deficient data security practices and response to a 2020 ransomware event that exposed the personal information of millions of consumers across the United States, including thousands of District residents. Under the settlement, Blackbaud has agreed to overhaul its data security and breach notification practices and pay $355,210 to the District.”
What enforcement powers does the AG possess in education-related cases?
Does the AG accept individual education civil rights complaints, or does the office only take on broad investigations (if they do individual complaints, would want to answer the below complaint process questions for the AG’s office)?
-
Does the AG have an office/section dedicated to education or education civil rights issues? (If the AG has sections or offices dedicated to education or children's rights issues, please identify that office when responding to relevant questions above and with respect to the complaint process below.)
The D.C. Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) launched its Civil Rights Section in April 2019 in response to evidence of ongoing bias and discrimination in the District. The section, composed of four attorneys and one investigator, protects the civil rights of District residents by bringing lawsuits to challenge discrimination, advocating for legislation to strengthen antidiscrimination laws, and engaging in educational community outreach so that residents know their rights. The team focuses on combatting large-scale discriminatory practices in order to serve as a significant deterrent to illegal discriminatory conduct.
Other State Enforcement Systems
Overview of D.C. Enforcement Agencies
The District of Columbia maintains the following agencies related to the regulation and enforcement of education-related civil rights:
State Board of Education: The State Board approves state-level education policies and advises the State Superintendent of Education.
Office of the Student Advocate: Office of the Student Advocate supports students and families in their advocacy through parent education, one-on-one coaching, resource support, and training.
Deputy Mayor for Education (“DME”): The DME is responsible for developing, planning, and implementing policies based on the Mayor's education vision. The DME also coordinates collaboration between government agencies.
Office of the State Superintendent of Education (“OSSE”): OSSE is the state education agency for DC, similar to departments of education in other states. OSSE monitors DCPS and charter schools to make sure they comply with DC and federal education laws and policies.
Local Education Agency (“LEA”): Similar to school districts in other states, an LEA operates elementary and secondary schools. DCPS is an LEA, and each charter network has its own LEA. Each LEA creates its own sets of policies and oversees implementation of federal and state policies.
Office of Human Rights (“OHR”): works to eliminate discrimination in the workplace and in schools. OHR also houses the Citywide Youth Bullying Prevention Program which investigates reports of bullying and seeks to rebuild comfort of students who have been victims of bullying.
Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (“DYRS”): DYRS supervises and cares for children convicted of crimes and committed to a DYRS facility as well as those accused of certain offenses while awaiting trial. Students attending a DYRS facility have the same educational rights as students attending traditional schools.
Of these agencies, OSSE and OHR process, evaluate, hear, and decide civil rights related education complaints.
Office of Human Rights
-
Who is eligible to file (students, parents, advocates, others)?
An individual may file a discrimination complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights (“OHR”) if they believe they have been discriminated against in educational institutions based on a protected trait in DC. For educational institutions, the DC Human Rights Act outlines the following protected traits: age; color; disability; family responsibilities; familial status; gender identity & expression; homeless status 8. marital status; national origin; personal appearance; political affiliation; race; religion; sex; sexual orientation; and source of income. D.C. Code § 2–1402.41. A filing individual does not have to be a District of Columbia resident to file with OHR, but the alleged discrimination must have taken place in the District of Columbia. Additionally, the complaint must be filed with OHR within one year of the occurrence or discovery of the alleged act. (D.C. Off. Hum. Rts., File A Discrimination Complaint, (https://ohr.dc.gov/service/file-discrimination-complaint##Who%20Can%20File%20a%20Complaint).)
Are there other administrative processes someone may have to exhaust before initiating a complaint? (i.e., going through school’s, district’s, or other agency’s process first, etc.)
How to initiate the process (relevant websites, standard forms, submission locations)
An individual who believes they have been discriminated against in educational institutions within the District of Columbia can file a complaint with OHR. (D.C. Off. Hum. Rts., Complaint Process & Timeline, (https://ohr.dc.gov/page/complaint-process-timeline).) The following is a basic overview of the complaint process:
Written Complaint: An individual can submit an intake questionnaire within one year of the alleged discriminatory act.
Intake Assessment/Appointment: OHR will assess the intake questionnaire for follow-up or to schedule an intake appointment. If OHR lacks jurisdiction, the complaint will be closed.
Charge Docketed & Served: After the intake process, OHR may docket an official Charge of Discrimination and serve it on the Respondent.
Mediation: Scheduled after service of the Charge of Discrimination. The DC Human Rights Act requires that all cases be mediated. Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution program implemented by OHR that seeks to resolve the complaint before a full investigation begins.
Full Investigation: If mediation fails, OHR conducts a full investigation, which may include witness interviews and requests for information and documents.
Determination: Based on the investigative record, OHR determines whether there is probable cause to believe that the Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination and issues a Letter of Determination. If a case is cross-filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the complainant may submit a request for substantial weight review to the EEOC within 15 days of receipt of the letter of determination.
Request for Reconsideration: Either party may submit a one-time internal appeal of the Determination, called a Request for Reconsideration, to OHR within 15 days of receipt of the Determination.
Petition for Review: If no probable cause is found, or the matter is dismissed prior to a Determination, the complainant may file a petition for review with the DC Superior Court within 30 days of the decision.
To file a complaint with OHR, an individual must complete an intake questionnaire and submit it to OHR. An individual may choose to fill out the form online or using the print version; both may be submitted online by emailing them to OHR.Intake@DC.Gov. OHR will not accept an email without a complaint form. An individual may also file a complaint via fax to (202) 727-9589, or in person/mailed to 441 4th Street NW, Suite 570N, Washington, DC 20001.
A complainant must provide OHR with a “statement of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice(s) and a statement of the particulars,” and the “date(s) of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice.”(D.C. Off. Hum. Rts., File A Discrimination Complaint, (https://ohr.dc.gov/service/file-discrimination-complaint##Who%20Can%20File%20a%20Complaint).) In sum, a complainant must describe the unlawful discrimination and the date that the discrimination occurred with enough detail that OHR can determine if OHR can or should investigate the complaint. For example, OHR will review the information to determine whether the individual filed the complaint within one year of the act of discrimination, whether the act occurred in the District, and whether the allegation is an act prohibited by the DC Human Rights Act. (D.C. Code §§ 2–1401-1431.)
An OHR Intake Officer may request an interview and/or additional information to decide whether OHR has jurisdiction over the matter and/or whether the complaint states a violation of the D.C. HRA. Complainants must fully cooperate with OHR by responding to all communications and requests for information from OHR staff truthfully, respectfully, and in a timely manner. If a complainant fails to cooperate in the intake process, OHR may dismiss the complaint.
Can complaints be filed anonymously or confidentially?
OHR and the relevant portions of the D.C. Code does not explicitly allow anonymous or confidential filing. However, the complaint form provides that the “Complainant’s attorney’s contact information may be provided in addition to or in lieu of Complainant’s contact information.” (D.C. Off. Hum. Rts., Attorney-Drafted Charges Pilot Program Guidance (July 15, 2024) (https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/Attorney-Drafted%20Charges%20Pilot%20Program%20Guidance_July%2015%202024.pdf).)
Are there language access requirements for complaint processes?
OHR and the relevant portions of the D.C. Code does not explicitly mandate language access requirements in the OHR hearing and complaint review process, but OHR provides the complaint filing forms for an educational institution-related complaint under the DC Human Rights Act in English, Amharic, Chinese, French, Korean, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
Are there known barriers to accessing enforcement (filing fees, documentation requirements)?
Can complainants have advocates or legal representation?
Individuals can utilize attorney services to file an OHR complaint but do not need to do so and are not entitled to representation during the process. Indeed, OHR states that “Individuals do not need an attorney in order to file a claim or finalize a charge with OHR.” (emphasis in original). (D.C. Off. Hum. Rts., Attorney-Drafted Charges Pilot Program Guidance (July 15, 2024) (https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/Attorney-Drafted%20Charges%20Pilot%20Program%20Guidance_July%2015%202024.pdf).)
Are complainants entitled to legal representation or other advocates to file or at any point in the process?
-
What is the appeals process, if any?
At the conclusion of a Hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issues a Proposed Decision and Order (“Proposed Order”)—including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law—to the parties and the Director of OHR. Thereafter, any party who is aggrieved by the Proposed Order has twenty calendar days to submit to the Director a proposed substitute order. Among other things, the Director will, ultimately, affirm or modify the Proposed Order, and a Final Decision and Order (“Final Order”) will be issued. Within fifteen days from the date that a Final Order is issued, parties may seek reconsideration by filing a request with the Director. The Final Order is appealable to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Are remedies legally enforceable once a violation is found?
With a finding of discrimination in a public sector case, there are various remedial awards for successful complainants, including retroactive promotion, backpay, cancellation of any unwarranted personnel actions, and the expungement of unwarranted disciplinary records. Importantly, neither compensatory damages, punitive damages nor attorney’s fees are available remedies in public sector cases. If there is a finding of discrimination in a private sector case, successful complainants may be awarded injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and/or attorney’s fees. Furthermore, the Commission is authorized to impose civil penalties upon discriminating respondents, all of which is payable to the District government.
Whenever the Commission determines that a respondent has not complied with the Commission’s Final Decision and Order, and the Commission has received no notice of a stay of enforcement from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Chairperson shall certify the matter to the Corporation Counsel for institution in the name of the District of Columbia of such civil proceedings as are necessary to obtain compliance with the Commission’s Order. (D.C. Mun. Regs. § 432 (https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/HRCommiss-HearingRequirements.pdf).)