## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 22 64

__ __ __ __ __ _
Edwar d C ha rle s M cDo na ld
, *

* App el la nt , *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Ci ty of Sai nt Pau l an d * Mayor Ch ris to ph er B. Co le m an , *

* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 12 Fi le d: May

10 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Edwar d C. McDo na ld ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng su m m ary 1 jud gm en t to de fen da nt s— th e Ci ty of St

. Pau l (th e Ci ty) a n d M ay or Ch ris to ph er Co le m an (th e m ay or )—o n va rio us cl ai m s ari si ng fro m McDo na ld ’s un su cces s f ul

ap pl ic at io n fo r ap po in tm en t as di rect o r o f t h e Ci ty’ s Dep art m en t of Hum an Ri gh ts

an d Equ al Eco no m ic Opp or tu ni ty, as well as de ni al of hi s m ot io n to co m pe l va rio us de po si ti on s. We affir m

.

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.I.

In 20 02 an d 20 03
, McDo na ld wor ke d fo r th e Ci ty as it s di rect or of th e Offi ce of Affi rm at iv e Acti on an d th e Co or di na to r of Mi no rit y Bu si ne ss Dev el op m en t an d
R e t e nt io n. In 20 03
, aft er th e te rm in at io n of hi s em pl oym en t, McDo na ld br o u g h t a la wsu it ag ai ns t th e Ci ty an d ci ty of fic ia ls
, al le gi ng vi ol a t i o n s o f th e Mi nn es ot a W hi st le bl owe r Pro te ct io n Act, th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 18 66
, an d th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act
of 18 71

. In 20 04
, th e pa rti es to th at act io n ex ecu te d a se tt le m en t ag reem en t a n d
rel eas e of al l cl ai m s, in whi ch th ey ag reed th at th e a g r e e men t an d rel eas e di d no t

co ns ti tu te an ad m is si on of l ia bi li ty by an y of t he pa rti es

.

In Aug us t of 20 08
, th e ci ty co un ci l ad op te d an or di na nc e crea ti ng th e Dep art m en t of Hum an Ri gh ts an d Equ al Eco no m ic Opp or tu ni ty (th e D e p a r tm en t).
The ci ty co un ci l th en pa ss ed a res ol ut io n th at “ th e Ci ty sh ou ld en ga ge in a co m m un it y
pr oc es s in or de r to se le ct a di rect or fo r th e ne wly fo rm ed Dep art m en t of Hum an Ri gh ts a n d Eq u al Eco no m ic Opp or tu ni ty.” Ci ty Res ol ut io n of Aug

. 8, 20 08

. Co un ci lm em

be r Mel vi n Cart er III was ap po in te d to c h a i r th e th irt een -m em be r

co m m it te e—c on si st in g of co m m un it y m em

be rs a n d st ak eh ol de rs —t o “ reco m m en d

to th e Ma y or a li st of f

in al is ts .” McDo na ld ’s App ’x 26 1.

Sh or tl y th erea fte r , i n f

o r mati on ab ou t th e crea ti on of th e Dep art m en t an d th e di rect or -s el ect io n pr oc es s ap pe ared on th e Ci ty’ s web si te

. It in di cat ed th at th e m ay or

an d ci ty co un ci l ha d ap po in te d a se le ct io n co m mi tt ee; th at “ [t]he 12 -m em be r

co m m it te e is ch ar g e d wit h ho st in g a se rie s of co m m un it y m eet in gs to en ga ge th e
pu bl ic an d ad vi si ng Hum an Res ou rces on th e recr ui tm en t, sc reen in g an d se le ct io n of
th e b es t p os si bl e can di da te ”; th at “ [n ]ew and am en de d ord in an ces wil l be p ro po se d
in th e fal l to su pp or t th e de pa rtmenta l fram ewo rk ”; th at th e Ci ty hop ed to ap po in t a di rect or fo r t h e D e p a r t ment by Ja nu ary of 20 09 ; an d th at “ [t]he ne w di rect or wil l

-2

-se rv e 3- y ear te rm s at th e reco m m en da ti on of th e m ay or an d wil l be ve tt ed th ro ug h a

co m m un it y sel ect io n p ro ces s s im il ar t o t ha t fo r th e Ci ty’ s p ol ic e an d fi re ch ie fs .” 2

In Sep te m

be r of 20 08
, McDo na ld ap pl ie d fo r th e p os it io n of di rect or of th e Dep art m en t. The se le ct io n co m m it te e rece iv ed th irt y -o ne ap pl ic an ts fo r th e po si ti on

. The se le ct io n co m

m it te e in te rv ie wed ei gh t ap pl ic an ts , in cl ud in g McDo na ld

. Sel ect io n co m

m it te e m em

be r Su sa n Kim

be rly, ag ai ns t who m McDo na ld ha d fil ed a

wor kp la ce co nd uc t co m

pl ai nt du rin g hi s te nu re wit h th e Ci ty, recu se d he rs el f fro m McDo na ld ’s Nov em

be r 14
, 20 08
, in te rv ie w be fo re th e co mm it te e. Kim be rly di d

p a r t i c i pa te in th e rem ai nd er of th e se le ct io n co m m it te e’s act iv it ie s. Dur in g McDo na ld ’s in te rv ie w, an ot he r co m m it te e m em

be r as ke d McDo na ld ab ou t hi s 20 03
whi st le bl owe r act io n.

Afte r th e sc reen in g in te rv ie ws, th e se le ct io n co m m it te e cert ifi ed th ree fin al is ts

to th e mayo r : M c D o n al d, Hop e Je ns en , an d Ly nn Lit tl ejoh n. Each of th e th ree fin al is ts ap pe ared at a co m m un it y in te rv ie w fo ru m on Decem be r 9, 20 08
, at whi ch

Ch ap te r 12 of th e Sai nt Pau l Ci ty Ch art er se ts fo rth th e pr oc ed ur es us ed to 2

se le ct th e Ci ty’ s po li ce an d fir e ch ie fs whe n a va can cy ari se s. Fi rs t, th e ci ty co un ci l

es ta bl is he s an d ap po in ts an ex am in in g an d qu al ifi cat io ns co m m it te e. Sai nt Pau l, Mi nn ., Ci ty Ch art er § 12 .12 .1 ( am en de d 20 09 ). The co m m it te e th en pr ov id es

co m pe ti ti ve ex am in at io ns to te st th e rel at iv e fit ne ss of th e po li ce ch ie f an d fir e ch ie f

can di da te s, grad es th e can di da te s, an d c ert ifi es th e fiv e be st -q ua li fie d can di da te s to th e m ay or

. Sai nt Pau l, Mi nn ., Ci ty Ch art er § 12 .12 .2 (am en de d 2 00 9)

. Onc e fiv e

can di da te s are cert ifi ed to th e m ay or , th e m ay or is req ui red to ap po in t on e o f th e cert ifi ed can di da te s, su bjec t to th e ap pr ov al o f t h e c i t y co un ci l. Sai nt Pau l, Mi nn ., Ci ty Ch art er § 12 .12 .3 (am en de d 20 09 ). “ I f t h e c o u n ci l do es no t ap pr ov e th e ap po in tm en t, th e m ay or sh al l in tu rn ap po in t each of th e rem ai ni ng can di da te s, each

su bjec t to co un ci l ap pr ov al .” Sai nt P a u l
, M in n., Ci ty Ch art er § 12 .12 .3 (am en de d 20 09 ). “ If th e co un ci l ap pr ov es no ne of th e can di da te s, th e can di da te who h a s

rece iv ed th e hi gh es t gr ad in g by th e co m m it te e sh al l be ap po in t e d w i t h ou t fu rth er act io n by th e m ay or or co un ci l.” Sai nt Pau l, Mi nn ., Ci ty Ch art er § 12 .12 .3 (am en de d 20 09 ).

-3

-co un ci lm em be r Cart er s ta te d t ha t o ne of t he th ree wo ul d b eco m e th e di rect or of th e Dep art m en t. On Decem be r 11
, 20 0 8
, M a yo r Co le m an an d Dep ut y Mayor Ann
Mu lh ol la nd al so in te rv ie wed each of th e th ree fin al is ts

. Mayor Co le m an of fere d th e
po si ti on to Je ns en , who de cl in ed to acce pt it

. The m ay or th en of fere d th e po si ti on to Lit tl ejoh n, who al s o d ecl in ed
, le av in g McDo na ld as th e so le rem ai ni ng fin al is t. Co un ci lm e m

be r Cart er, in an in te rro ga to ry res po ns e, ex pl ai ne d hi s de ci si on to

reco nv en e th e se le ct io n c om m it te e:

[S]om et im e aft er Decem be r 31
, 20 0 8
, a n d be fo re Ja nu ary 5, 20 09
, Co un c i l membe r Cart er be li ev es he an d th e Mayor sp ok e, pe rh ap s th ro ug h a st affe r, ab ou t th e di le m m a of su dd en ly ha vi ng on ly on e vi ab le fin al is t. Si nc e th e Sel ect io n Co m m it te e’s ch arg e was to pr od uc e a sl at e of 3- 5 can di da te s fo r th e Mayor to ch oo se fro m , Co un ci lm em be r Cart er de te rm in ed th e co m

m it te e’s wor k was y et in co m pl et e an d in fo rm ed th e Mayor’s Offi ce th at , ba rri ng th ei r ob je c ti on , Co un ci lm em

be r Cart er in te n d e d to reco nv en e th e co m m it te e to co m

pl et e it s wor k. Co un ci lm em

be r Car te r th en reco nv en ed th e Sel ect io n C om m it te e.

McDo na ld ’s App ’x 27 2. The se le ct io n co m m it te e id en ti fie d Pau la Fo rb es , Luz Fri as ,
an d Sh aro n Gart h as ad di ti on al fin al is ts

. Fo rb es th en wit hd rew fro m co ns id erat io n, le av in g Fri as an d Gart h as th e two ad di t i o n a l f in al is ts cert ifi ed to th e m ay or

. Pri or
to an in te rv ie w wit h th e m ay or , Gart h wit hd rew. Mayor Co le m an an d Dep ut y Mayor
Mu lh ol la nd in te rv ie wed Fri as an d ul ti m at el y of fere d he r th e di rect or po si ti on

. Fri as

acce pt ed an d b ecame the di rect or

.

McDo na ld br ou gh t th e cu rren t acti on ag ai ns t th e Ci ty an d th e m ay or in Apr il
20 09
, al le gi ng (1 ) vi ol at io ns of hi s ri g h t s t o e q ua l pr ot ect io n an d pr oc ed ur al an d

su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d S ta te s Con st it ut io n, resu lt in g from hi s eng ag em en t in pro te ct ed act iv it y ; (2 ) co ns pi racy to de ny hi m an em pl oym e n t o p p o r tu ni ty wit h a pu bl ic in st it ut io n be cau se of en ga ge m en t in pr ot ect ed act iv it y , in vi ol at io n of 42 U.S

. C

. § 19 85 ; (3 )
vi ol at io ns of Tit le VII (4 2 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 (e) et se q

. an d 20 00 e-3 (a)) of t h e C iv il

-4

-Ri gh ts Act of 19 64 ; (4 ) vi ol at io n of Titl e IX of th e Edu cat io n Am en dm en ts of 19 72

(2 0 U.S.C. § 16 81 et se q .); (5 ) vi ol at io n of th e Mi nn es o t a H u man R i gh ts Act (MHRA) (Mi nn

. St at

. §§ 36 3A.1 4( 1) an d 3 63 A.15 (a)) ; (6 ) vi ol at io n of his rig ht s to

eq ua l pr ot ect io n an d su bs ta nt i v e du e pr oc es s un de r Arti cl e I, Sect io n 2 of th e Mi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti on ; an d (7 ) in te nt io na l in fli ct io n of em ot io na l di st res s un de r Mi nn es ot a la w. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t

on all cla im s.

II.

“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , ap pl y in g th e sa m e st an da rd s as th e di st ric t co u r t a n d vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab l e t o t h e no nm ov in g pa rty.” Zik e v. Adv an ce Am
., Cas h Adv an ce Ct rs

. of
Mo
., In c., 64 6 F.3 d 50 4, 50 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Trav el ers Pro p. Cas

. Co

. of Am

.

v. Gen

. Cas

. In s. Co
., 46 5 F.3 d 90 0, 90 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). “ The co ur t sh al l gr an t

su m mar y ju d g m en t if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a).

III.

A. Due Pro ces s

McDo na ld co nt en ds th at th e m ay or an d th e Ci ty vi ol at ed hi s r i g h t to du e
pr oc es s un de r th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti o n an d th e Mi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti on by 3

“Th e du e pr oc es s pr ot ect io n pr ov id ed un de r th e Mi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti o n i s 3 id en ti cal to th e du e pr oc es s gu aran te ed un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on of th e Uni te d St at es .” Sart or i v. Harn is ch feg er Co rp ., 43 2 N.W .2d 44 8, 45 3 (Mi nn

. 19 88 ) (ci ti ng And ers on

v. Ci ty of St

. Pau l, 32 N.W .2d 53 8, 54 1 (Mi nn

. 19 48 )); se e al so Mi nn eap ol is Tax i Owner s Co al it io n, In c. v. Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is
, 57 2 F.3 d 50 2, 51 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s am e).

-5

-fai li ng to ap po in t hi m to th e di rect or po si ti on aft er Je ns en an d Lit tl ejoh n— who
, al on g

wit h McDo na ld
, co m

po se d th e in it ia l lis t of fin al is ts —h ad de cl in ed th e m ay or ’s of fer.
Defen da nt s arg u e t ha t McDo na ld ne ve r ha d a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t i n a po te nt ia l p os it io n o f em pl oym en t wi th th e Ci ty.

To reco ve r un de r § 19 8 3, a pl ai nt iff m us t pr ov e “ (1 ) vi ol at io n of a

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , (2) co m m it te d b y a st at e act or , (3) who act ed wit h t he req ui si te

cu lp ab il it y an d cau sa ti on to vi ol at e th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht .” Sh ru m ex rel

. Kell y v. Klu ck
, 24 9 F.3 d 77 2, 77 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 1 ) (ci ti ng Bd

. of Cn ty. Co m m ’rs. v. Bro wn, 52 0 U.S. 39 7, 40 3- 04 (1 99 7) ). “ Ana lysis of ei th er a pr oc ed ur a l o r s u b s ta nt iv e du e
pr oc es s cl ai m m

us t be gi n wit h an ex am in at io n of th e in te res t al le ge dl y vi ol at ed .”
Dov er Eleva to r Co

. v. Ark. St at e Uni v., 64 F.3 d 44 2, 44 5- 46 (8t h C ir. 19 95 ) (ci ti ng Caro la n v . Kans as Cit y , 81 3 F .2d 17 8, 1 81 (8t h C ir. 1 98 7) ).

“ The po ss es si on of a pr o t e c te d li fe, li be rty o r pr op ert y in te res t is a co nd it io n
pr eced en t to th e go ve rn m en t’s ob li ga ti on to pr ov id e du e p ro ces s o f la w, a nd whe re

no su ch in te res t ex is ts , th ere can be no du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n.” Dob ro vo ln y v. Mo or e, 12 6 F.3 d 11 11
, 11 13 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (ci ti ng Mo ve rs W areh ou se , In c. v. Ci ty of Lit tl e Can ad a, 71 F.3 d 71 6, 71 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 )). Pro pe rty in te res ts “ are no t crea te d by th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. Rat he r th ey are crea te d an d th ei r di m en si on s are de fin ed by ex is ti ng

ru le s or un de rs ta nd in gs that ste m fro m an in de pe nd en t so ur ce su ch as st at e la w—ru le s

or un de rs ta nd in gs th at se cu re cert ai n be ne fit s an d th at su pp or t cl ai m s of en ti tl em en t

to th os e be ne fit s.” Bd

. of Reg en ts of St at e Co ll s. v. Ro th
, 40 8 U.S. 56 4, 57 7 (1 97 2) ;

se e al so Craf

t v. W ip f, 83 6 F.2 d 41 2, 41 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) (n ot in g th at “ [a] st at e m ay al so crea te a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect e d in te res t by es ta bl is hi ng
st at ut or y or reg ul at or y m eas ur es th at im po se su bs ta nt iv e li m it at io ns on th e ex erci se of of fic ia l di s c r et io n.” ). “ To ha ve a pr op ert y in te res t in a be ne fit
, a pe rs on cl earl y

m us t ha v e mo r e th an an ab st ract ne ed or de si re fo r it

. He m us t ha ve m or e th an a

un il at eral ex pe ct at io n of it

. He m us t, in st ead
, ha ve a le gi ti m at e cl ai m of en ti tl em en t

to it .” Ro th , 4 08 U.S. a t 57 7; se e Sch ue ll e r v. God da rd , 6 31 F.3 d 46 0, 46 2- 63 (8 th

-6

-Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ A pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t ex is ts w h e r e a pl ai nt iff ha s a le gi ti m at e

cl ai m of en ti tl em en t to a be ne fit th at is de riv ed fro m a s ou rce su ch as st at e la w.”) (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

Viewi ng th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to McDo na ld
, we co nc lu de th at
McDo na ld ha d no pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t in th e di rect or po si ti on

. The res ol ut io n

na m in g th e se le ct io n co m m it te e in di cat ed t h a t “ th e Ci ty sh ou ld en ga ge in a

co m m un it y pr oc es s in or de r to se le ct a di rect or ,” th at th e se le ct io n co m m it te e wou ld

“ ov ers ee sa id c om m

un it y pr oc es s,” an d th at th e se le ct io n co m m it te e wou ld
“re c o mm e n d to th e Mayor a li st of fin al is ts .” McDo na ld ’s App ’x 26 1 (em ph as is
ad de d)

. The st at em en t on th e Ci ty’ s web si te in di cat ed th at th e di rect or “ wil l be ve tt ed
th ro ug h a co m

m un it y se le ct io n pr oc es s si mil ar to th at fo r th e Ci ty’ s po li ce an d fir e ch i e f s

. ” McDo na ld ’s App ’x 26 4 (em ph as is ad de d)

. The St

. Pau l Co de of
Ord in an ces , whi ch ou tl i ne s th e m ay or ’s ap po in tm en t po wer, req ui res th at “ [t]he

m ay or sh a l l a p p o in t, wit h th e ad vi ce an d co ns en t of th e co un ci l, to th e po si ti on s of
ci ty at to rn ey an d al l he ad s of ex ecu ti ve de pa rtments , whi ch ap po in te es sh al l se rv e at th e m ay or ’s p le as ur e, ex cep t as pr ov id ed ot he rwis e in th is Ch a r t e r.” St . P au l Co de
of Ord in an ces , Sec. 3.0 1.3

. Not hi n g in th e res ol ut io n or th e st at em en t co nc ern in g
ap po in tm en t of th e d i r e c t o r or in th e or di na nc e co nc ern in g th e m ay or ’s ge ne ral

a p po in tm en t po wer m an da te d de fen da nt s to st ric tl y ap pl y th e se ct io ns of th e Ci t y Ch art er go ve rn in g th e se le ct io n of po li ce an d fir e ch ie fs
, pr ecl ud ed th e se le ct io n

co m m it te e fro m cert ifyin g ad di ti on al fin al is ts , or pr oh ib it ed th e m ay or fro m 4

Co un ci lm em

be r Car te r’s al le ge d st at em en t at the co m m un it y fo ru m

th at on e 4 of th e th ree fin al is ts cert ifi ed at th at ti m e w o u l d b e c om e th e di rect or do es no t al te r th is co nc lu si on

. See McM en em y v. Ci ty of Ro ch es te r, 24 1 F.3 d 2 7 9
, 2 8 6 (2 d Ci r. 20 01 ) (n ot in g th at “ ev en if th e Ch ie f at on e ti m e in te nd ed to pr om ot e [p la in ti ff] an d

ev en if he ex pr es se d th at in te nt io n as a pr om is e, th e Ci ty’ s br oa d di sc ret io n in m at te rs

o f p r om ot io n, gr an te d by st at ut e, pr ev en t th at pr om is e fro m rip en in g in to a n

en ti tl em en t.”) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. The or di na nc e go ve rn in g th e m ay or ’s ap po in tm en t po wer req ui red m ay or al ap po in tm en t an d ci ty co un ci l ap pr ov al as pr e-re qu is it es to

as su m in g t he po si ti on of d ire ct or

.
-7

-co ns id eri ng ad di ti on al fin al is ts cert ifi ed by th e se le ct io n co m m it te e. To th e co nt rary, th e st at em en t, res ol ut io n, an d ap pl ic ab le or di na nc e le ft co ns id erab le di sc ret io n to th e

se le ct io n co m

m it te e in cert ifyin g fin al is ts , th e m ay or in ap po in ti ng fro m a li st of
fin al is ts , an d th e ci ty co un ci l in ap pr ov in g th e m ay or ’s se le ct io n. Eve n if th e m ay or

was co ns tra in ed to ap po in t fro m th e in i t i a l li st of th ree fin al is ts , th e fact th at an
ap po in tm en t fro m th at li st st il l wou ld ha ve be en su bjec t to th e a p p ro va l of th e ci ty

co un ci l pr ev en ts McDo na ld fro m po ss es si ng a le gi ti m at e cl ai m of en ti tl em en t to th e di rect or po si ti on

. See Ro th
, 40 8 U.S. at 5 7 7 ; S ch ue ll er, 63 1 F.3 d at 46 2- 63

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to de fen da nt s

on McDo na ld ’s du e p ro ces s cl ai m s.

B. Equ al Pro te ct io n

McDo na ld cl ai m s th at th e Ci ty an d th e m ay or vi ol at ed h i s r i g h t to eq ua l

pr ot e c ti on of th e la ws un de r th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d St at es C o n s t i tu ti on an d un de r th e Mi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti on

. McDo na ld al le ge d in hi s 5

co m pl ai nt th at de fen da nt s vi ol at ed hi s rig ht t o eq ua l pr ot ect io n “ be cau se of hi s

en ga ge m en t in pr ot ect ed act iv it y ,” i.e. hi s 20 03 la wsu it ag ai ns t th e Ci ty an d va rio us ci t y o ffi ci al s. Co m

pl

. ¶ 33

. He di d no t as se rt a raci al di sc riminat io n cl ai m ari si ng fro m hi s s ta tu s as an Afric an -Am eri can

. 6

The Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s ha s ex pl ai ne d th at “ ‘[e] qu al pr ot ect io n is an 5 in he ren t bu t un en um er a t e d rig ht fo un d an d co nf irmed in Mi nn es ot a’s st at e

co ns ti tu ti on .’ ” St ud or , In c. v. St at e of Mi nn ., 78 1 N.W .2d 40 3, 40 8 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Mu rp hy v. Co m m ’r of Hum an Serv s., 76 5 N.W .2d 10 0, 10 6 (Mi nn

. Ct . App . 20 09 )).

W e no te th at McDo na ld di d rai se th e is su e of race in hi s de po si ti on s an d so m e 6

su bs eq ue nt m ot i o n s an d arg um en ts , in cl ud in g hi s ap pe ll at e br ie f, bu t ou r

co ns id erat io n of hi s eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m is li m it ed to th e ret al ia ti on th eo ry as se rte d in hi s co m

pl ai nt

.
-8

-“ In ge ne ral
, th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se req ui res th at st at e act or s tr ea t sim il arl y si tu at ed pe op le al ik e.” Gan le y v. Mi nn ea p o l i s P a rk an d Rec reat io n Bd
., 49 1 F.3 d
74 3, 74 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Bo gr en v. Mi nn es ot a, 23 6 F.3 d 39 9, 40 8) (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )). As a th res ho ld m at te r, McDo na ld m us t de m on s t r at e th at th e de fen da nt s
tre at ed hi m di ffer en tl y th an si m il arl y si tu at ed can di da te s. Gan le y , 49 1 F .3d at 7 47 ;

se e St at e v. Co x, 79 8 N.W .2d 51 7, 5 2 1 (Mi nn . 2 01 1) (n ot in g th at “ to es ta bl is h th at [p la in ti ff] ha s be en de ni ed eq ua l pr ot ect io n of th e la ws, [p la in ti ff ] m us t sh ow th at si m il arl y si tu at ed pe rs on s ha ve be en tre at e d di ffer en tl y ”) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. If he

sa ti sf ie s th is th res ho ld in qu iry, McDo na ld m us t th en de m on st rat e in te nt i on al or
p ur po se fu l di sc riminat io n. See Cen t. Airl in es , I nc . v . Un it ed St at es , 1 38 F. 3 d 3 3 3
, 33 5 (8 th Cir . 19 98 ).

Defen da nt s co nt en d th at McDo na ld pr es en te d no ev id en ce th at he was de ni ed
th e di rect or po si ti on be cau se of hi s 20 03 la wsu it

. In res po ns e, McDo na ld no te s th at

va rio us in di vi d u a l s in vo lv ed in th e di rect or se le ct io n pr oc es s were m em be rs of th e ci ty co un ci l or em

pl oyed by th e Ci t y i n 20 03

. Sp eci fic al ly, McDo na ld no te s th at Kim be rly, ag ai ns t who m McDo na ld ha d fil ed a wor kp la ce co nd uc t co m pl ai nt du rin g hi s e mp l oym en t wit h th e Ci ty, se rv ed on th e se le ct io n co m m it te e. Bu t Kim

be rly

recu se d he rs el f fro m McDo na ld ’s in te rv ie w, an d de sp it e Kim be rly’ s pa rti ci pa ti on on th e se le ct io n co m

m it te e, th e co m

m it te e ul ti m at el y cert ifi ed McDo na ld as a fin al is t fo r th e di rect o r p o s i t i o n. The m ay or ret ai ne d th e po wer to ap po in t fro m th e li st of
fin al is ts , an d th ere is no ev id en ce th at th e m ay or ’s de c i s i o n t o a p po in t Fri as rat he r th an McDo na ld was in flu en ced by McDo na ld ’s la ws u i t a g ai ns t th e Ci ty an d it s of fic ia ls or by McDo na ld ’s wor kp la ce-c on du ct co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Kim

be rly in 20 03

. Bec au se McDo na ld ha s n ot pre se nt ed ev id en ce t ha t h e was tre at ed di ffer en tl y fro m si m il arl y si tu at ed can di da te s or th at he w a s t h e vi ct im of in te nt io na l or pu rp os efu l
di sc riminat io n, h is eq ua l p ro te ct io n c la im fai ls as a m at te r of

law. 7

McDo na ld st at ed in hi s in te rro ga to ry an swe rs tha t de fe nda nts vio la te d his ri gh t 7
to eq ua l pr ot ect io n by fai li ng to ap po in t hi m di rect or aft er Je ns en an d Lit tl ejoh n ha d

-9

-C. Co ns pi racy

McDo na ld cl ai ms t h a t de fen da nt s vi ol at ed 42 U.S.C. § 19 85 (3 ) by

“ co ns pi r[i ng ] to de ny Pl ai nt iff an em pl oym en t o pp or tu ni ty w it h a pu bl ic in st it ut io n be cau se of hi s en ga ge m en t in pr ot ect ed act iv it y ,” th us “ de pr iv [in g] Pl ai nt iff
, di rect ly

or in di rect ly, of du e pr oc es s an d eq ua l p ro te ct io n of th e la ws, an d of th e pr iv il eg es

a nd im m un it ie s se cu red to Pl ai nt iff un de r th e la ws of th e Uni te d St at es .”
Co m pl

. ¶ 39

. McDo na ld st at ed in an in te rro ga to ry an swe r th at th e al le ge d co ns pi racy

was b a s ed on th e fact th at th e m ay or di d no t ap po in t hi m di rect or “ be cau se of th e

wor k pl ace co nd uc t co m

pl ai nt [Mc Don al d] ha d fil ed ag ai ns t th e ci ty.” Defs .’ App ’x
32

.

To es ta bl is h a co ns pi racy u n d e r § 19 85 (3 ), McDo na ld m us t pr ov e: (1 ) th e

ex is te nc e of a co ns pi racy; (2 ) th at th e pu rp os e of th e co ns pi racy was to de pr iv e hi m of hi s ci vi l rig ht s; (3 ) an act in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy; an d (4 ) in jury. And rews

v. Fo wler
, 98 F.3 d 10 6 9
, 1 0 7 9 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (ci ti ng Grif fin v. Brec ke nr id ge , 40 3
U.S. 88
, 10 2- 03 (1 97 1) ). McDo na ld al so “ m us t sh ow th at th e co ns pi racy is fu el ed by

so m e ‘clas s- ba se d, in vi di ou sl y di sc riminat or y an im us .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Bray v. Alex an dr ia W om en ’s Healt h C li ni c, 50 6 U.S. 2 63 , 26 8 (1 99 3) ).

W e co nc lu de th at McDo na ld ’s as se rti on th at de fen da nt s co ns pi red ag ai ns t hi m
to de pr iv e hi m of th e di rect or po si ti on be cau se of hi s pr ev io us co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t th e Ci ty do es no t de m on st rat e a cl as s- base d inv idi ous ly di sc riminat or y an im us

. W e ag ree wit h ou r si st er ci rcu it s t ha t h av e h el d t ha t s ta tu s as a whi st le bl owe r do es no t en ti tl e

on e to pr ot ect io n un de r § 19 85

. See Bryand v. Mi li ta ry Dep ’t of Mi ss ., 59 7 F.3 d 67 8,
68 7 (5 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (h ol di ng th at “ st at us as a whi st le bl owe r do es no t en ti tl e [p la in ti ff]

de cl in ed th e m ay or ’s of

fer. As ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, ho wev er, de fen da nt s were no t bo un d
to ap pl y se ct io n 12 .12 .3 of th e Ci ty Ch art er to th e se le ct io n of th e di rect or

. No eq ua l
pr ot ect io n v io la ti on oc cu rred as a m at te r of law.

-1 0-to pr ot ect io n un de r § 19 85 (2 )”); Ch il dr ee v. UAP/GA AG CHEM, In c., 92 F.3 d 11 40
,

11 47 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ) (d ecl in in g “ to ap pl y § 19 85 (3 ) to whi st le bl owe rs as a cl as s” );
Hick s v. Res ol ut io n Trus t Co rp ., 97 0 F.2 d 37 8, 38 2 ( 7 t h C i r

. 1 9 92 ) (h ol di ng th at

“ st at us as a ‘w hi st le bl owe r’ do es no t en ti tl e [p la in ti ff] to ci vi l rig ht s pr ot ect io n un de r §§ 19 85 (3 ) an d 19 86 ” be cau se whi st l e bl owe rs “ do no t po ss es s an y of th e ch arac te ris ti cs —i .e. race , na ti on al or ig in or ge nd er— whi ch are tra di ti on al ly pa rt an d

pa rcel of di sc ret e an d in su la r m in or it ie s ” ) ( c i ta ti on s om it te d)

. Thu s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to de fen da nt s on McDo na ld ’s co ns pi racy cl ai m

.

D. Titl e VII an d M HRA Rep ris al

McDo na ld al le ge s th at de fen da nt s vi ol at ed Tit le VI I b y “den [y in g] an d
in te rfer [in g] wit h Pl ai n t i f f’s at te m pt to av ai l hi m se lf to an d be ne fit fro m an

em pl oym e n t o p p or tu ni ty wit h a pu bl ic in st it ut io n be cau se of hi s en ga ge m en t in

pr ot ect ed act iv it y ,” in vi ol at io n of 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0( e) et seq ., and by “ ret al ia t[i ng ]

a g a i n s t Pl ai nt iff be cau se Pl ai nt iff is an in di vi du al who ha s en ga ge d in pr ot e c t e d

act iv it y ,” in vi ol at io n of 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-3 (a). Co m pl

. ¶¶ 42
, 45

. He al so as se rte d
th at de fen da nt s vi ol at ed th e MHRA, Mi n n

. S t a t. § 36 3A.1 5, by “ in te nt io na ll y

en ga g[ in g] in a rep ris a l a g a i n s t Pl ai nt iff be cau se Pl ai nt iff ha d as se rte d hi s rig ht s
pr ev io us ly un de r Mi nn

. St at

. § 36 3A et se q .” Co m pl

. ¶ 51

. In hi s in te rro ga to ry

an swe rs , McDo na ld as se rte d th at th e fact ua l ba si s fo r th es e cl ai m s co ns is ts of hi s no t be in g ap po in te d to th e di rect or po si ti on be cau se of hi s 2003 w hi st le bl owe r co m pl ai nt

.

McDo na ld ’s Tit le VII an d MHRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m s are pr op erl y an al y zed

un de r th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk

. See Ferc el lo v. Cn ty. of
Ram se y , 61 2 F.3 d 10 69
, 10 77 & n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

.

v

. G r e en , 41 1 U.S. 79 2 (1 97 3) ); Hoo ve r v. Nor wes t Pri va te Mo rtg

. Ban ki ng , 6 3 2
N.W .2d 53 4, 54 8 (Mi nn

. 20 01 ) (“ A rep ris al cl ai m is an al y zed un de r th e McDo nn el l
Dou gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng te st

. ” ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Und er th at fram ewo rk
, “ an

-1 1-em

pl oyee ha s th e in it ia l bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng a pr im a faci e cas e of ret al ia ti on .”
Ferc el lo
, 61 2 F.3d at 10 77 (ci ti ng Kasp er v . Fed erat ed Mu t. In s. Co., 42 5 F.3d 49 6,
50 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). To es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e of ret al ia ti on , an em pl oyee m us t sh ow:

(1 ) sh e en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed co nd uc t; (2 ) sh e suff ered m at eri al ly ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n, act io n th at wou ld de te r a reas on ab le em pl oyee fro m

m ak in g a ch arg e of

em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n o r ha ras sm en t; an d (3 ) th e m at eri al ly ad ve rs e act io n was cau s a l l y li nk ed to th e pr ot ect ed

co nd uc t.

Id . at 1 07 7- 78 (ci ti ng W eg er v . Cit y of Lad ue , 50 0 F .3d 71 0, 7 26 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) ).

The d i s t r i c t co ur t pr op erl y he ld th at McDo na ld can no t de m on st rat e a pr im a faci e cas e of ret al ia ti on un de r ei th er Tit le VII or t h e M H R A

. McDo na ld pr es en te d

no ev id en ce th at th e m ay or ’s de ci si on no t to ap po in t McDo na ld was cau sa ll y li nk ed

to Mc D o n a l d’s whi st le bl owe r cl ai m , whi ch was m ad e m or e th an fiv e y ears earl ie r. See Ty le r v. Uni v. of Ark

. Bd

. of Trus te es , 62 8 F

. 3 d 9 8 0
, 9 8 6- 87 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (co nc lu di ng th at m or e ev id en ce tha n m ere te m po ral pr ox im it y was ne ed ed to crea te

a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact on cau sa l ne xu s fo r a ret al ia ti on cl ai m whe n a pe rio d
of ne arl y th ree y ears pa ss ed be twee n th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y an d th e al le ge d ret al ia to ry

a c t). McDo na ld al le ge s th at a se le ct io n co m m it te e m em

be r as ke d McDo n a l d a
qu es ti on ab ou t th e whi st le bl owe r cl ai m du rin g hi s in te rv ie w. The re is no ev id en ce, ho wev er, th at th is ne ga ti ve ly in flu en ced McDo na ld ’s ap pl ic at io n, fo r th e s e l ect io n

co m m it te e ul ti m at el y cert ifi ed McDo na ld as a fin al is t. Thu s, su m m ary jud gm en t was
pr op erl y gr an te d to de fen da nt s on McDo na ld ’s Tit le VII an d MHRA rep ris al cl ai m s. 8

The di st ric t co ur t al so co rrec tl y de cl in ed to co ns id er McDon al d’s un pl ead ed 8 al le ga ti on s of Tit le VII an d MHRA ge nd er di scr im ina tio n, whi ch were no t rai se d un ti l hi s op po si ti on to de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. S e e N. St at es Po wer Co

. v. Fed

. Tran si t Adm in
., 35 8 F.3 d 10 50
, 1 0 5 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ [W] hi le we

reco gn iz e th at t h e p l ead in g req ui rem en ts un de r th e Fed eral Ru le s are rel at iv el y

-1 2-E. MHRA Aid in g a nd Abet ti ng

McDo na ld co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t e r red in gr an ti ng de fen da nt s

su m m ary jud gm en t on hi s cl ai m th at th ey vi ol at ed Mi nn

. St at

. § 36 3A.1 4 by ai di ng

an d ab et ti ng pr act ic es fo rb id de n by th e MHRA. An un de rlyin g MHRA cl ai m is a
pr ereq ui si te to a cl ai m of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng vi ol at io n of th e MHRA. See Mi nn

. St at

. § 3 6 3 A.14

. As di sc us se d ab ov e, su m m ary jud gm en t was pr op er on McDo na ld ’s

u n de rlyin g MHRA rep ris al cl ai m

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e gr an t of su m m ar y jud gm en t t o d efen da nt s o n M cDo na ld ’s MHRA ai di ng -an d- ab et ti ng cla im

.

F. Tit le IX

In hi s co m

pl ai nt , McDo na ld al le ge s th at de fen da nt s vi ol at ed Ti t l e I X o f th e Edu cat io n Am en dm en ts of 19 72
, 20 U.S.C. §§ 16 81 -8 8, by “ di sc riminat [in g] ag ai ns t [h im ] an d

. . . de n[ y in g] an d in te rfer [in g] wit h hi s at te m pt s to pa rti ci pa te in an d av ai l
hi m se lf to th e be ne fit s of a fed eral ly fin an ced pu bl ic in st it ut io n b e c a u s e o f hi s

en ga ge m en t in pr ot ect ed act iv it y .” Co m pl

. ¶ 48

. Und er Tit le IX, “ [n ]o pe rs on in th e Uni te d St at es sh al l, on th e ba si s of se x, be ex cl ud ed fro m pa rti ci pa ti on in
, be de ni ed
th e be ne fit s of

, or be su bjec te d to di sc riminat io n un de r an y ed uc at io n pr og ram or

a c t i v i t y r e c ei vi ng fed eral fin an ci al as si st an ce

. . . .” 20 U.S.C. § 16 81 (a); See Lam

v. Cu rat or s of th e Uni v. of Mo
., 12 2 F.3 d 65 4, 65 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (“ In or de r fo r se x di sc riminat io n to be act io na bl e un de r Tit le IX, th e di sc riminat io n m us t be co nn ect ed
wit h an ‘edu cat io n pr og ram or act iv it y rece iv in g F e de ral fin an ci al as si st an ce.’”) (q uo ti n g § 1 6 8 1 (a))

. Bec au se McDo na ld di d no t pr es en t an y ev id en ce rai si ng a
ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er he was de ni ed th e di rect or po si ti on on th e ba si s of se x or whe th er an y su ch di sc riminat io n was co n ne ct ed wit h an ed uc at io n

pe r mi s si ve , th ey do no t en ti tl e pa rti es to m an uf act ur e cl ai m s, whi ch were no t pl ed
, la te in to th e li ti ga ti on for th e p ur po se of a vo id in g s um m ary jud gm en t.”)

.

-1 3-pr og ram or act iv it y rece iv in g fed eral fin an ci a l a s s i s ta nc e, su m m ary jud gm en t to de fen da nt s was pro pe r on McDo na ld ’s Titl e IX cl ai m

.

G. Int en ti on al Inf

li ct io n o f Em ot io na l Di st res s

Und er Mi n n e s o ta la w, a cl ai m fo r in te nt io na l in fli ct io n of em ot io na l di st res s
req ui res pr oo f of fo ur ele m en ts : “ (1 ) th e co nd uc t m us t be ex tre m e an d ou tra ge ou s; (2 ) th e co nd uc t m

us t be in te nt io na l or reck le ss ; (3 ) it m us t cau se em ot io na l di st res s;

an d (4 ) th e di st res s m

us t be se ve re.” Lan ge sl ag v. KYMN In c., 66 4 N.W .2d 86 0, 86 4 (Mi nn

. 20 03 ) (q uo ti ng Hub ba rd v. Uni te d Pres s In t’l, In c., 33 0 N.W .2d 42 8, 43 8- 39 (Mi nn

. 19 83 )). An in te nt io na l in fli ct io n of em ot io na l di st res s cl ai m i s “‘s h arp ly
li m it ed to cas es in vo lv in g pa rti c u l a r ly eg reg io us fact s,’” an d a “ ‘hig h th res ho ld

st an da rd of pr oo f’ i s req ui red to su bm it th e cl ai m to a jury.” Id . (qu ot in g Hu bb ard
, 33 0 N.W .2d at 43 9)

. “ Co nd uc t is ex tre m e an d ou tra ge ou s whe n it is so at ro ci ou s th at it pa ss es th e bo un da rie s of de cen cy an d is ut te rly in to le rab le to th e c i v i l iz ed

co m m un it y .” Id . at 8 65 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

McDo na ld ’s cl ai m fo r in te nt io na l infl ic ti on of em ot io na l di st res s do es no t m eet th e hi gh th res ho ld s t a nd ard of pr oo f req ui red to su bm it su ch a cl ai m to a jury. The

m ay or ’s de ci si on to ap po in t Fri as rat he r th an McDo na ld to th e di rect or po si ti on do es

no t co ns ti tu te ex tre m e an d ou tra ge ou s co nd uc t as a m at te r of la w, an d McDo na ld ha s

no t id en ti fie d an y se ve re em ot io na l di st res s su ffer ed as a res ul t of no t be in g ap po in te d

to t h e p os it io n. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t t o d efen da nt s o n t hi s cl ai m

.

H. Disc ov ery Mo ti on s

M c D o na ld al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyi n g hi s m ot io ns to co m

pe l th e de po si ti on s of Mayor Co le m an , co un ci lm em be r Cart er, an d

co un ci l Pres id en t Lan dr y

. W e can no t rev ie w McDo na ld ’s ch al le ng e to th e m ag is tra te

-1 4-jud ge ’s or de r de nyin g th is no n- di sp os it iv e pr e-t ri al m oti on becau se McDo na ld fai le d 9

to fil e an y ob

jecti on s to su ch or de r be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t. Und er Ru le 72 (a) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e , a f t er a m ag is tra te jud ge is su es a writ te n or de r de ci di ng a pr et ria l m at te r no t di sp os it iv e of a pa rty’ s cl ai m , “ [a] pa rty m ay se rv e an d
fil e ob jecti on s to th e or de r wit hi n 14 da y s af te r be in g se rv ed wit h a co py.” Fed . R

. Ci v. P. 72 (a). “ A pa rty m ay no t as si gn as erro r a de fect i n th e or de r no t ti m el y ob jecte d to .” Id

. Bec au se McDo na ld di d no t ti m el y fil e ti m el y ob jecti on s be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, he m ay no t ch al le ng e th e or de r on ap pe al

. See Dale y v. Mar rio tt In t’l,
In c., 41 5 F.3 d 88 9, 89 3 n.9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng Pag an o v. Fran k, 98 3 F.2 d 34 3,
34 6 (1 st Ci r. 19 93 ) (“ [W] he n

. . . a li ti ga nt co ul d ha ve te st ed a m ag is tra te ’s ru li ng by
br in gi ng it be fo re t he di st ric t jud ge , b ut fai le d to do so wit hi n t he all ot te d [n ow 1 4-
da y ] pe rio d in Ru le 72 (a), he can no t la te r le ap fro g th e tri al co ur t an d ap pe al th e ru li ng di rect ly to t he co ur t o f ap pe al s.”) ).

IV.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Fran kl i n L. Noe l, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 9 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.
-1 5-