DC Fire & EMS Facing Suit Over Alleged Use of Juvenile Records in Cadet Hiring Process

The District of Columbia Fire & EMS Department (DCFEMS) is facing a pro se lawsuit filed by a Fire Cadet Program applicant who claims the department improperly accessed and relied upon confidential juvenile records during the hiring process. The complaint, filed December 8, 2025, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, names the District of Columbia Fire & EMS Department as the defendant. 

The petitioner, Todd A. Lowder III, alleges that DCFEMS and the Police Fire Clinic (PFC) used juvenile-origin records during his 2025 Employment Suitability Assessment (ESA). According to the complaint, Lowder was 17 years old at the time of a prior Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Cadet psychological and background screening. He asserts those materials qualify as confidential juvenile records under D.C. Code §§ 16-2331 and 16-2332 and should not have been used.

Lowder states that on September 26, 2025, DCFEMS rescinded his conditional offer for the Cadet Program, informing him he was “not psychologically suited” for the position. He claims multiple officials confirmed or implied that the ESA decision relied, in whole or in part, on his MPD Cadet psychological file.

According to the complaint:

• A lieutenant told Lowder directly that the ESA decision was based on the MPD Cadet psychological file.
• After Lowder referenced juvenile-record confidentiality laws, a chief reportedly reversed course, stating juvenile records were not used.
• Another chief, in a written decision, stated that the Police Fire Clinic “relied on all information in its possession, including MPD Cadet information.” 

Lowder acknowledges he signed a general release on July 18, 2025, but argues the release did not mention juvenile records, did not identify any juvenile materials, and did not constitute the explicit, record-specific adult consent required by statute. The complaint maintains that juvenile-record confidentiality is mandatory and cannot be waived through a broad release such as the one her signed. He further alleges that FEMS never obtained a Family Court order that would be required for disclosure of juvenile materials. 

Lowder contends that despite multiple requests, FEMS has refused to identify what records were accessed, what legal authority supported the use of those records, or what information formed the basis of the ESA determination.

The complaint cites several statutory provisions, including:

• D.C. Code § 16-2331, requiring that juvenile case records “be kept confidential and shall not be open to inspection” except under narrow exceptions.
• D.C. Code § 16-2332, requiring the same confidentiality for juvenile social records.
• D.C. Code § 16-2335(c), stating that a person whose juvenile records are sealed “shall not be required to disclose such records in an application for employment.” 

Lowder seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. He asks the court to declare DCFEMS’ alleged use of juvenile records unlawful, to order DCFEMS to identify all records accessed or relied upon, and to require a new ESA review that excludes any juvenile-origin materials. He also seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the department to correct any suitability determination that may have been influenced by the disputed information. 

Here is a copy of the pro se complaint.