District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dep't v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board

── District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dep't v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-CV-0573 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, APPELLANT, V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD, et al., APPELLEES. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2023-CAB-002461) (Shana Frost Matini, Judge) (Argued October 8, 2025 Decided May 21, 2026) Stacy L. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, with whom Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Caroline S. Van Zile, Solicitor General, Ashwin P. Phatak, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, and Carl J. Schifferle, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief, for appellant. Geoffrey H. Simpson for appellee Public Employee Relations Board. Daniel J. McCartin, with whom Benjamin J. Campbell was on the brief, for intervenor Fraternal Order of Police/Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee. Before BECKWITH and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior Judge. Opinion for the court by Senior Judge THOMPSON. Dissenting opinion by Associate Judge BECKWITH at page 31.  2 THOMPSON, Senior Judge: This matter returns after a remand in which we directed that the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) explain its decision not to set aside an arbitral award as “on its face contrary to law and public policy.” See D.C. Metro. Police Dep’t v. D.C. Pub. Emp. Rels. Bd., 282 A.3d 598, 605, 606 (D.C. 2022) (“Thomas I”). On remand, PERB explained its decision and again upheld the arbitral award, and the Superior Court (again) affirmed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment upholding PERB’s decision. I. Facts and Procedural History A general factual background and the earlier procedural background are set out in Thomas I. See id. at 601-02. We repeat some of that background here, focusing on the facts most pertinent to the issues on remand. In 2009, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Officer Michael Thomas, while off duty, twice shot Mr. Julio Lemus outside a residence in Hyattsville, Maryland, seriously injuring and nearly killing Mr. Lemus. Thomas I, 282 A.3d at 601. Officer Thomas had stepped outside the residence and off its porch after seeing someone (Mr. Lemus) near his car and suspecting that the person was trying to break into the vehicle. 1 Officer Thomas was outside of his jurisdiction and had been trained to call 1 The arbitrator found that the following was not disputed: After hearing the vehicle alarm go off on his automobile key fob, Officer Thomas asked his fellow officer, Hope Mathis, who was in the residence with him, to turn off the house alarm.  3 911 in that situation “before taking any police action in response to a nonviolent property crime.” Id. at 601. He did not call 911, however, and he contended that he shot Mr. Lemus after first identifying himself as a police officer, instructing Mr. Lemus to leave, and directing him to show his hands when he did not leave, and after Mr. Lemus instead placed his hand inside the pocket of his hoodie as he approached Officer Thomas. 2 Lemus testified that he had his hands up at the time of the shooting, but reportedly told Hyattsville Police Department investigators that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident and told Hyattsville police that he had no recollection