Female EMS Lieutenant Sues D.C. Fire Department and Union Over Promotional Practices

A female EMS lieutenant has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (DCFEMS) and IAFF Local 36 adopted a promotional system that effectively excludes women and EMS personnel from advancement to the rank of Captain.

The suit was filed on December 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Lt. Holly O’Byrne, a long-serving EMS officer. Lt. O’Byrne names DCFEMS and Local 36 as defendants.

According to the complaint, DCFEMS and Local 36 implemented new qualification standards and promotional procedures in 2020. Lt. O’Byrne alleges the revised system favors dual-role firefighter/EMS personnel—who are overwhelmingly male—over single-role EMS personnel, a group that is predominantly female. She claims the changes resulted in a promotion process that “is so efficient in its gender-based exclusionary effect that no EMS providers and no females have been promoted to Captain since its implementation in 2020”.

Lt. O’Byrne began her career with DCFEMS in 2013 as a paramedic. She was promoted to Field Training Officer in 2017, EMS Sergeant in 2020, and EMS Lieutenant in 2022. The complaint states that she has consistently received strong performance evaluations and has earned multiple commendations, including life-saving and meritorious care awards.

The lawsuit describes two groups eligible for promotion to Captain: Fire Lieutenants, who are more than 95% male, and EMS Lieutenants, who perform emergency medical services exclusively. According to the complaint, the EMS workforce is approximately 57% female, yet there are only two operational EMS Lieutenants, one of whom is Lt. O’Byrne.

The promotional process consists of a written exam, an assessment phase, and a ranking system. Lt. O’Byrne alleges that each phase disproportionately disadvantages EMS candidates. The written exam includes firefighting-related questions that EMS candidates must answer but that are later excluded from their scoring. As a result, EMS candidates are penalized more heavily for incorrect answers because their exams contain fewer scored questions. The complaint states that EMS candidates are not told in advance which questions will be excluded from scoring.

Quoting from the complaint:

• The Fire Lieutenants and EMS Lieutenants initially take the same written exam which contains a number of questions relating to firefighting duties (“Fire questions”).
• Given their professional experience, the Fire Lieutenants are in a much better position to answer the Fire questions correctly than the EMS Lieutenants.
• When the EMS Lieutenants’ written tests are scored, the Fire questions are eliminated and not scored. As a result of these questions being eliminated for EMS Lieutenants, the written exam they take has fewer scored questions. Consequently, a wrong answer on the Fire Lieutenants’ exam carries a penalty of 1 point, whereas an incorrect answer on the EMS Lieutenants’ exam carries a penalty of 1.205 points.
• The difference in point value is highly significant given that the first ranked candidate and the thirty-sixth ranked candidate are separated by approximately 10 points and the sixth and the thirty-sixth ranked candidates are separated by less than 5 points approximately.

The assessment portion of the process is also alleged to differ significantly. Fire Lieutenant candidates reportedly receive more questions, more oral components, and access to study materials, while EMS candidates receive fewer questions, fewer oral components, and no study materials. The lawsuit further alleges that Fire Lieutenant scores are later “converted” using a mathematical formula that inflates their results, while EMS scores are not adjusted in the same way.

Lt. O’Byrne took the Captain’s promotional exam in 2024 and successfully completed all portions. When FEMS published the 2024 Promotional Registry, she was ranked last—56th out of 56 candidates—despite allegedly having the second-highest raw average score. All 55 candidates ranked above her were Fire Lieutenants.

The complaint alleges that, without the score conversion process, Lt. O’Byrne would have ranked second overall. As of the filing of the lawsuit, 25 promotions had been made from the registry, all to male candidates, and none to Lt. O’Byrne.

Lt. O’Byrne asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, alleging both disparate impact and disparate treatment based on sex. She seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.

Here is a copy of the complaint: