He says heterosexual officers facing similar complaints kept their jobs
A gay police officer says he was fired over a made-up assault claim. A federal court is letting him prove it.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled on April 21 that a former police officer's discrimination lawsuit against the District of Columbia Housing Authority can move forward – keeping alive allegations that the agency fired him because he is gay, relying on a sexual assault accusation he says was entirely fabricated.
Tyreem Fosque joined the D.C. Housing Authority's police department as a Special Police Officer in late 2021. He alleges he performed his duties excellently, without any performance issues or complaints, and that his sexual orientation as a gay man was widely known throughout the department.
That changed in early 2024, when a fellow officer, Don Williams, reported that Fosque had sexually assaulted him at work. Fosque categorically denies it ever happened. He points to friendly text messages Williams sent him after the supposed incident – including a "Merry Christmas" on December 25, 2023, a "Happy New Year" on January 1, 2024, and a happy birthday wish on January 9, 2024.
The Housing Authority placed Fosque on administrative leave with pay, then suspended him without pay while the Metropolitan Police Department investigated. That investigation ended within a month. Investigators determined there was insufficient evidence to meet the elements of a sexual abuse offense and closed the case.
The Housing Authority, however, did not stop there. Roughly two months after the criminal investigation was closed, Fosque received a proposed termination notice. He alleges it was based largely on statements from Officer Kenneth Matthew, who claimed Fosque had admitted to the assault. Fosque denies ever making any such admission to Matthew or anyone else.
He appealed the proposed termination in an email to Police Chief Michael Reese, asserting that the allegations were false and motivated by discrimination. Three months later, the department fired him – claiming, according to Fosque falsely, that it never received his appeal.
What makes the case particularly relevant for HR professionals is the comparator allegation. Fosque claims that two heterosexual male officers, Darnell Douglass and Harold Yeager, faced multiple well-supported complaints of sexual harassment and assault but kept their jobs. Williams, his accuser, also continued to serve at the police department – even as Fosque claims another officer texted him saying he had recordings of Williams admitting he had made the whole thing up.
Fosque filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the D.C. Human Rights Act, bringing claims of disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The Housing Authority moved to dismiss the case entirely.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden denied the motion as to all three claims, allowing the case to proceed against the Housing Authority. On disparate treatment, the court found that the allegations of inconsistent discipline between Fosque and his heterosexual colleagues, combined with allegations that the underlying sexual assault report was willfully untrue, were enough to move forward. On hostile work environment, the court recognized that the months-long disciplinary process, built on what Fosque alleges were deliberately false statements, met the threshold at this stage – though it cautioned that this will be a tall order to sustain at summary judgment. On retaliation, the court found a plausible connection between Fosque's discrimination complaint and the decision to finalize his termination.
The court did grant the motion in part, dismissing the D.C. Housing Authority Police Department as a separate defendant on the grounds that it is not a distinct legal entity from the Housing Authority itself.
The court noted that the bar at this early stage is low and that the Housing Authority may still prevail later in litigation. The case now heads to discovery, where the strength of Fosque's allegations will face real scrutiny. For employers, it is a reminder that inconsistent disciplinary outcomes, unverified accusations, and ignored internal appeals can quickly become the foundation of a viable discrimination claim – one a court will not throw out at the front door.
