Civil-rights attorneys are praising last month’s court ruling in New Jersey that reinstated a transgender man’s police-abuse lawsuit.
In 2012, Shakeem M. Holmes was arrested in Jersey City for allegedly shoplifting, then threatened and verbally abused by local police during his detainment. One officer threatened to put his fist down Holmes’ throat “like a fucking man,” according to court records.
In 2014, Holmes filed a lawsuit alleging abuse by the Jersey City Police Department. But the following year, Hudson County Superior Court Judge Joseph A. Turula dismissed the suit.
On April 27, a three-judge panel of the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division reinstated Holmes’ suit. The judges on the panel are Susan Reisner, Ellen Koblitz and Thomas W. Sumners.
They wrote that Holmes “was in a uniquely vulnerable position, that the individuals making the hostile comments were police officers, who wielded tremendous power over arrestees, and that the comments included a physical threat.”
The judges also said Jersey City officials presented no evidence there was a need to “threaten, demean or humiliate prisoners on the basis of their gender affiliation or membership in any other protected class. In fact, such conduct may encourage prisoners to attack the harassment victim, thus undermining the orderly operation of the police lock-up as well as the safety of the transgender prisoner.”
Kevin M. Costello, an attorney for Holmes, expressed approval of the ruling.
“We’re obviously thrilled that New Jersey’s courts have reiterated the proposition that under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, transgender people have the right — even when they’re being arrested and processed by law enforcement — not to be belittled or abused because of their transgender status,” Costello told PGN. “Even if police are correctly arresting and correctly processing someone, they should do so by treating the person with dignity and respect, as the Law Against Discrimination requires. We now look forward to a jury trial.”
Justin F. Robinette, a civil-rights attorney who didn’t handle the Holmes case, also praised the ruling.
“It’s another tool we can use to fight anti-LGBT bias,” Robinette told PGN. “The ruling may not be binding precedent in Philadelphia but it’s certainly persuasive authority. What Mr. Holmes allegedly experienced was horrendous. But I’m very gratified to hear that he’ll finally have his day in court. The three-judge panel got it right. Their ruling sends a clear message that this type of alleged police misconduct against LGBT people will not be tolerated.”
Robinette expressed hope that the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations will accept for investigation all valid police-abuse complaints in light of the Holmes ruling.
“This case should be a warning to the Philadelphia Police Department not to mistreat LGBT people under their watch, in light of the city’s LGBT-inclusive Fair Practices Ordinance. And the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations should take note. This ruling paves the way for future complaints to be filed with the PCHR, to fight bias by the police. We now have another piece of ammunition in our arsenal to fight anti-LGBT police abuse.”
Matthew S. Wolf, another civil-rights attorney, also praised the ruling.
“The police should not demean anyone,” Wolf told PGN. “In New Jersey and Philadelphia, demeaning a detainee in the police station could cost the police money. New Jersey law specifically protects LGBT individuals in police stations since they are defined under New Jersey law to be places of ‘public accommodation’ that must be free from hostility based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The regulations of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations have a similar definition for ‘public accommodations’ that would include Philadelphia police departments. So under facts similar to the New Jersey case, in Philadelphia a claim could be made against the police. This case should be a warning that if the police in Philadelphia are hostile toward people in custody on the basis of their gender identity, then they are open to a lawsuit under Philadelphia regulations. Since these are fee-shifting cases, it could be an expensive proposition for the police to mock a detainee’s gender identity.”
Jury selection in the Holmes case is scheduled to begin 9 a.m. July 17 at the William J. Brennan Courthouse in Jersey City. A judge and courtroom haven’t been selected.
PCHR Executive Director Rue Landau issued this statement: “The Philadelphia Police Department is subject to the public accommodations/delivery of city services provisions of the Fair Practices Ordinance. If an individual believes they have experienced discrimination based upon their protected class, they should contact our office.”