WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – District of Columbia police are wasting no time in their lawsuit that claims a post-George Floyd law strips them of their power.
The D.C. Police Union filed a motion for summary judgment on Aug. 14, days after it filed its lawsuit against the district and Mayor Muriel Bowser. The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Second Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, which was passed unanimously by the D.C. Council, is at the center of the case.
“All matters pertaining to the discipline of sworn law enforcement personnel shall be retained by management and not be negotiable,” the law says.
“This subsection shall apply to any collective bargaining agreements entered into with the Fraternal Order of Police/Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee after September 30, 2020.”
This makes the D.C. police union the only union out of more than 40 in the district to be unable to negotiate with management regarding the discipline of its members, the lawsuit said.
“(T)he District has separated sworn law enforcement personnel into a new, distinct class, distinguishing them from all other District employees and has discriminated against that class by stripping them of their right to bargain with management concerning discipline,” the lawsuit says.
“The Defendants’ motivation for the Act is not grounded in logic, data, sound policy or reason, but is instead a deliberate and reactionary concession to anti-police rhetoric and protests being carried out by a small number of citizens, many of whom are not even District residents.”
The summary judgment motion says the law was a “reactionary concession to anti-police rhetoric” and complains that it suffers from Constitutional defects that should void it.
It violates the equal protection and due requirements of the U.S. Constitution, the motion says, as well as Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 prohibiting bills of attainder, the Contracts Clause contained in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
“The discriminatory distinction drawn in the Act between sworn law enforcement and every other District employee and labor union lacks any rational connection to a legitimate government objective,” the motion says.
“Instead, the Act only serves the illegitimate objective of punishing and discriminating against a class of people that are presently disfavored politically.”