A former District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer has been granted permission to join a major class-action lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, but the judge has placed a specific limitation on his involvement: he can only pursue individual monetary damages, not the broader injunctive relief sought by the class.
The ruling allows Vincent Hopkins, who was disability-retired from the MPD in 2022, to intervene in the ongoing case, *Pappas v. District of Columbia*. This decision is significant because it enables him to seek personal compensation while ensuring the main class action—which focuses on systemic policy changes—remains streamlined.
The Core Dispute and Hopkins’s Story
The underlying lawsuit, brought by a certified class of current and former MPD officers, claims that the District of Columbia and the MPD violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act by implementing disability retirement policies without offering reasonable accommodations.
Mr. Hopkins’s personal story aligns closely with the class allegations. He was placed on sick leave in 2020 after contracting COVID-19 and subsequently developed “post-viral COVID syndrome,” leading to ongoing fatigue and pain. In 2021, he was referred for disability retirement under an MPD rule that mandates retirement for employees who spend 172 cumulative workdays over two years in less-than-full-duty status. Like the plaintiffs, Mr. Hopkins contends this mandatory retirement policy unlawfully discriminated against him based on his disability.
Navigating the Intervention Rules
Mr. Hopkins initially filed a motion to intervene but had it denied without prejudice because it lacked the necessary legal grounds and a proposed complaint, as required by federal rules. He subsequently filed an amended motion, which the Court reviewed under the standards for permissive intervention (Rule 24(b)).
To be allowed to join, Mr. Hopkins needed to satisfy several criteria: an independent basis for jurisdiction (which he met through federal question claims under the ADA and Section 504), a timely motion, and common questions of law or fact with the existing case. The Court found he easily satisfied these procedural hurdles, noting his claims stem from the same MPD policy at the heart of the class action.
The Crucial Question: Delay and Prejudice
The most contentious part of the decision involved whether Mr. Hopkins’s entry would cause “undue delay or prejudice” to the District of Columbia, the primary defendant. The District opposed his intervention, arguing it would lead to confusion and slow down the proceedings.
The Court acknowledged that adding parties can increase costs, complexity, and the risk of error. However, the judge adopted a strategic approach to managing this risk:
1. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Denied: The Court emphatically refused to allow Mr. Hopkins to intervene to seek new declaratory or injunctive relief. Because the existing class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2)—which is designed for cases where the remedy (like an injunction) applies uniformly to all class members—allowing an individual to seek separate systemic relief would undermine the efficiency of the class structure. The plaintiffs are already seeking to enjoin the discriminatory practices.
2. Monetary Damages Approved: The Court found that allowing Mr. Hopkins to pursue his *individual monetary damages* would cause only “negligible” delay. This was crucial because the Court had previously notified absent class members that they might lose their right to sue for individual damages if they didn’t intervene or opt out.
Judge Contreras noted that Mr. Hopkins appeared to be following the very instructions given in the official class notice, which advised members seeking money to file a motion to intervene. Denying him this opportunity after he followed protocol would be unjustified, especially since the case’s fact discovery period was still open.
Regarding the District’s concerns about needing additional discovery on Mr. Hopkins’s medical history, employment prospects, and accommodations, the Court was unconvinced that this would cause a “meaningful” further delay, especially since the main parties have already required extensions to complete discovery.
In summary, the ruling serves a dual purpose: it protects the integrity and efficiency of the class action seeking broad policy changes, while simultaneously ensuring that an individual who followed court instructions has a chance to seek personal financial redress related to the same discriminatory conduct.