Filed Date: June 1, 2020
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 (the 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 identifies specific changes to be made and timelines for those changes to occur. Litigation in this case is therefore ongoing as of January 1, 2023.
Summary Authors
Hank Minor (1/1/2023)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:43 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Minnesota
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 1, 2020
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: No
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:
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2023 - None
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Discrimination-basis:
Race: