Filed Date: March 31, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
After a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd on May 25, 2020, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights ("MDHR") opened an investigation into whether Minneapolis ("City") and its police department ("MPD") violated a Minnesota state human rights statute because of a pattern or practice of race discrimination. On June 1, 2020, the MN Department of Human Rights filed a charge of discrimination against the city. Four days later, the parties requested a temporary court order from the Minnesota district court for Hennepin County to immediately implement public safety changes outlined in a joint stipulation. The court approved the order on June 8, 2020.
The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis (“Federation”) moved to intervene in the case on December 16, 2021. At a subsequent hearing, the Federation clarified that its primary goal was to ensure that it received notice of filings or actions regarding the court’s June 8, 2020, temporary order. Both parties and the Federation represented to the court that they did not intend to seek changes to the temporary order, and the parties agreed to send copies and notices of any future filings to the Federation as a courtesy. Given these facts, the court concluded in an order filed on March 8, 2022, that there was no reason to determine the intervention issue. Instead, it stayed the Federation’s motion to intervene pending a relevant potential change to the June 8, 2020 order and the status of the case.
More information about the changes made and findings from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights investigation can be found in this report (also available as a resource). The MDHR published the findings of its investigation on April 27, 2022. It concluded that there was probable cause to believe that the City and MPD engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The report stated that the pattern or practice of discriminatory, race-based policing was caused primarily by the MPD’s organizational culture, and that reforming MPD’s policies, procedures, and training would be meaningless without fundamental change in MPD’s culture. Likewise, it found that existing accountability and oversight systems were insufficient, and in fact contributed to a pattern of discriminatory policing.
The DHR then explained that it would work with the City to develop a consent decree that identified specific changes to be made and timelines for those changes to occur. On March 31, 2023, the parties submitted a lengthy settlement agreement to the court. The settlement requires sweeping organization and cultural change, including: revised use of force, de-escalation, and arrest protocols; establishment of a database to record officer conduct and investigations; partnership with behavioral health and response teams; new oversight; and City funding of an independent monitor. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. A termination evaluation hearing must be held no later than four years, but the City may move for termination of the agreement if it can show compliance for at least 24 months.
The court approved the settlement agreement and entered it as an order on July 13, 2023. Over the next year, the City and MDHR selected Effective Law Enforcement All (ELEFA) as the independent evaluator; ELEFA began their role, including working with the parties to draft and publish a progress evaluation plan.
On September 13, 2024, the parties jointly filed to modify the settlement agreement so the effective date would become March 18, 2024 – the day ELEFA took on their duties as Independent Evaluator – and to change the deadlines to correspond with the progress evaluation plan. The court ordered these modifications on September 18.
ELEFA published its first Semi-Annual Progress Report on February 3, 2025. The report covered March 18 through September 30, 2024. Among the highlighted achievements and challenges, ELEFA reported that MPD was drafting revised policies and had been thorough in considering public feedback on published policies, including Non-Discrimination Policing policies and Stop/Search/Citation/Arrest policies. The report also noted some progress in training, albeit with delays for leadership supervisor training. ELEFA noted there were over a thousand use of force cases that still needed to be reviewed to verify compliance, although the City and MPD were making progress in eliminating the backlog of misconduct investigations and quality assurance reviews of use of force.
The second Semi-Annual Progress report, covering October 1, 2024 through March 31, 2025, was published on May 20th. In it, ELEFA noted that while MPD and the CIty hadn’t met all the goals targeted for ‘Year One’ of the Evaluation Plan, they had made demonstrable progress towards meeting the Settlement Agreement’s requirements and were building a foundation for sustainable reform.
As of December 2025, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Hank Minor (1/1/2023)
Robin Peterson (4/15/2023)
Avery Coombe (12/22/2025)
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Police Violence Protests
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 31, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiff was the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the then-Commissioner of that department, Rebecca Lucero.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City of Minneapolis (Minneapolis, Hennepin), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Minnesota state trial court 27-CV-20-8182
Minnesota state trial court 27-CV-23-4177
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Provide antidiscrimination training
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Policing:
Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects
Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures