Siddhartha H. Rathod

Civil-Rights Results

Siddhartha H. Rathod represents people and families in civil-rights, police-misconduct, wrongful-death, education, and constitutional litigation. His completed matters include a $19 million settlement with extensive crisis-response reforms, a jury verdict exceeding $19.75 million, and additional settlements paired with lasting policy changes.

The $19 Million Glass Settlement

Rathod represented Sally and Simon Glass in civil litigation arising from the response to their son Christian’s roadside-assistance call near Silver Plume, Colorado. Seven officers from several agencies were present during the encounter, and a Clear Creek County supervisor participated remotely.

Body-camera recordings preserved the call for help, Christian’s keys on the dashboard, repeated commands to leave the vehicle, the arrival of multiple agencies, and the decision to force entry. Clear Creek County later acknowledged that its initial public account did not accurately describe the encounter and that the lethal force was inconsistent with reasonable policing.

Rathod framed the officers’ shared responsibility as a failure of intervention: “Any of the seven officers there could have stopped this simply by saying something.” The question was not only who acted, but which officers had the opportunity and duty to interrupt what the recordings showed.

Four governmental entities contributed to the $19 million settlement announced in May 2023: $10 million from Clear Creek County, $5 million from Georgetown, $3 million from Colorado, and $1 million from Idaho Springs.

Clear Creek County agreed to create a dedicated crisis-response team, certify patrol officers in crisis intervention, include presentations by the Glass family in recruit training, and dedicate a public park in Christian’s name. Colorado agreed to develop a virtual-reality de-escalation scenario based on the encounter and to incorporate the family’s presentation into active-bystandership instruction for state troopers and gaming officers. The governmental entities also issued acknowledgments concerning tactics, command, intervention, and the accuracy of the initial public account.

Idaho Springs acknowledged that its officers’ conduct reflected poor judgment and tactics and lacked clear command. Georgetown disavowed its earlier inaccurate account of the encounter. Clear Creek County apologized to the family and stated that the conduct fell short of its expectations.

Colorado’s 2020 Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act created a state cause of action for violations of rights secured by the Colorado Constitution. The statute expressly includes failure to intervene, removes qualified immunity as a defense, entitles a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorney fees, and generally requires the officer’s employer to indemnify a judgment or settlement.

That state-law route sits beside federal civil-rights claims and state tort claims. Rathod’s case selection begins by matching each fact to the governing source of law, the available defenses and indemnification rules, and the form of relief capable of changing practice as well as compensating a client.

The Lower Downtown Verdict

Rathod’s firm represented Yekalo Weldehiwet, Bailey Alexander, and Willis Small IV in claims arising from a Denver officer’s gunfire toward a crowded area in Lower Downtown. John Lee, Anthony Viorst, and their teams represented three other plaintiffs. Because the body-camera and city-camera recordings used different frame rates, the trial team synchronized them to reconstruct the timing. One image showed the officer’s flashlight pointed away from the suspect as he fired, evidence bearing on his position and the risk to people behind the target.

Rathod and Lee gave younger lawyers who had helped develop that record substantial roles during the eight-day trial, carrying the evidence work into the courtroom instead of keeping it behind senior counsel.

After an eight-day trial and one day of deliberation in October 2025, the jury found the officer liable and awarded the six plaintiffs more than $19.75 million.

Denver Jail and Police Reforms

Rathod, Qusair Mohamedbhai, and Arash Jahanian represented Jamal Hunter in federal court. Their claims addressed customs governing detainee protection, force, investigation, and the defense of misconduct claims. Judge John Kane requested a federal investigation into Denver’s public-safety practices. The 2014 resolution provided $3.25 million and required independent review of the Denver sheriff’s department and city attorney’s office.

Rathod, Mohamedbhai, and Jahanian also represented Kelly Boren, Sharelle Thomas, Ana Ortega, and Kristal Carrillo in the Denver Diner matter. A city camera recorded the incident, but the footage was not released for nearly two years. The team interviewed dozens of witnesses and reviewed more than one hundred thousand pages of discovery. The federal court allowed the municipal-liability claim to proceed on evidence concerning delayed complaint investigations and officer discipline; the case settled for $360,000, and Denver later revised its police disciplinary-hearing structure.

Rathod and his colleagues later published “Municipal Liability: Strategies, Critiques, and a Pathway Toward Effective Enforcement of Civil Rights” in the Denver University Law Review, addressing municipal civil-rights liability under Monell.

The article traces municipal liability from policy or custom, through notice and causation, to the remedy—a structure reflected in the team’s record-building across complaints, discipline, supervision, and training.

The Hernandez Policy Changes

Rathod represented the family of Jessica “Jessie” Hernandez in a federal civil-rights action that used force analysis, accident reconstruction, and ballistics. The 2017 resolution totaled $999,999.

Denver trained officers under a revised policy barring gunfire at a moving vehicle when the vehicle itself is the only asserted deadly weapon. A family representative received a place in the community process reviewing use-of-force policy, and the city formalized a rule against proactively releasing unrelated criminal-history information about a person involved in an officer shooting.

The Rai and McClain Settlements

Rathod represented the Rai family in claims concerning misconduct toward a student during school-bus transportation. The bus driver was positioned to observe and report the conduct, and the claims placed that reporting duty at the center of the district’s responsibility. The St. Vrain Valley School District approved a $3.85 million settlement in 2017 and implemented reforms intended to protect other students.

Rathod represented Sheneen McClain in civil litigation arising from the death of her son Elijah after an encounter with Aurora police and paramedics. Aurora resolved the civil claims for $15 million in November 2021. The resolution occurred alongside a state investigation, a consent decree governing Aurora police and fire practices, and Colorado restrictions on ketamine use.

The settlement allocated $10 million to Sheneen McClain and $5 million to Elijah’s estate, figures Rathod kept distinct when explaining the resolution. He said Sheneen would exchange the entire payment for one more day with her son.

Trial Practice and Teaching

Rathod served as a Captain in the United States Marine Corps before law school and was stationed in Iwakuni, Japan. Early in his legal career he worked as a public defender and represented five detainees from Yemen pro bono in Guantanamo Bay habeas litigation. He earned an economics and management degree from Miami University in Ohio and his law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law. His prior civil-rights and employment work has also included Baltazar v. Vail Run Resorts and Guzzo v. State of Wyoming. He has tried more than fifty jury cases, taught trial advocacy through the National Institute for Trial Advocacy since 2011, and served as adjunct faculty at the University of Colorado School of Law.

His teaching and writing follow the same litigation map: begin with official conduct, identify the governing rule, trace the supervisor, complaint system, and training record, then connect those facts to a remedy a court or settlement can enforce.