# United States Court of A ppe als
For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 5- 35 75

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

Ro dn ey Raym on d

Pla in ti ff - App el la nt

v.

Bo ard of R eg en ts of t he Uni ve rs it y of M in ne so ta
, in di vi du al ly in t he ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es ; The Uni ve rs it y

of M in ne so ta

Defe nd an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

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

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 15 , 20 16
Fi le d: Jan ua ry

31 , 20 17

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

Befo re BENTON an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d S TRAND, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

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

STRAND, Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.Ro dn ey Raym on d (Raym on d) br ou gh t th is act io n ag ai ns t th e Bo ard of Reg en ts

of th e Uni ve rs it y of Mi nn es ot a, in di vi du al ly in th ei r of fic ia l cap aci ti es (Reg en ts ), an d

th e Uni ve rs it y o f M in ne so ta (Un iv ers it y ) pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, se ek in g
da m ag e s a nd in

jun ct iv e rel ie f. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Raym on d’s am en de d 2

co m pl ai nt . This ap pe al fol lo wed . W e affi rm

.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Ray m on d’s Am ende d Compla in t 3
Raym on d was em

pl oyed as a well ne ss di rect or an d fit ne s s i n s tru ct or at th e
Uni ve rs it y ’s Dul ut h cam

pu s. Beg in ni ng in 20 09

, th e Uni ve rs it y rece iv ed rep or ts th at Raym on d was vi ol at in g va rio us sc ho ol po li ci es , in cl ud in g po li ci es rel at ed to se xu al

ha ras sm en t. Raym on d de ni e d t h e a ll eg at io ns an d th e Uni ve rs it y co nd uc te d

in ve st ig at io ns . Each i nv es ti ga ti on co nc lu de d R ay m on d h ad in de ed vi ol at ed sch oo l

po li ci es

. He ap pe al ed th es e de ci si on s to va ry in g de g r e e s , wit h each ap pe al be in g
de te rm in ed ag ai ns t h im

.

Raym on d al le ge d th at on e of th e in ve st ig at io ns was ta in te d by bi as an d

in vo lv ed co ll us io n be twee n th e in ve st ig at or an d co m pl ai na nt

. A U n i v ers it y pa ne l

ag reed an d d e c i d e d t o hi re a ne w in ve st ig at or

. Raym on d ob jecte d to a ne w
in v e s t i g a ti on on do ub le jeop ard y an d du e pr oc es s gr ou nd s. The Uni ve rs it y de ni ed
Raym on d’s ob

jecti on

. Raym on d th en req ue st ed to be in vo lv ed in se le ct in g th e ne w
in ve st ig at or

. Thi s req ue st was de ni ed

. The ne w in ve st ig at or was hi red ba se d, in pa rt,

on th e reco m

m en da ti o n of th e Uni ve rs it y ’s le ga l co un se l. Raym on d req ue st ed th e

The Hon or ab le Don ov an W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at es Dis t r i c t Ju dg e fo r th e 2
Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

W e m us t acce pt th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s se t fo rth in th e am en de d co m pl ai nt as 3

tru e fo r pu rp os es of de ci di ng whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y di sm is se d th at

co m pl ai nt

. Se e e.g

. , Bra de n v. W al -Ma rt St or es , In c. , 58 8 F.3 d 58 5, 5 91 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

-2-in ve st ig at or recu se hi m se lf gi ve n th at th e at to rn ey who ha d reco m m en de d hi m wou ld

be th e “ pr os ecu to r” ag ai ns t Ra y m on d. Th is req ue st was d en ie d.

Raym on d al le ge d th e ne w in ve st ig at io n was fla wed be cau se it wen t be y on d th e

sc op e of th e al le ga ti on s an d was no t jus ti fie d by Uni ve rs it y p o l i cy

. Acco rd in g to Raym on d, th e ne w in ve st ig at or en ga ge d in un pr of es si on al co m

m un ic a ti on s wit h
Raym on d’s cou ns el , fai le d t o i nv es ti ga te th e co ll us io n in th e or ig in al in ve st ig at io n,

e xc eed ed th e sc op e of hi s in ve st ig at or y m an da te
, di st or te d wit ne ss st at em en ts a n d

cam e to erro ne ou s co nc lu si on s. He al so al le ge d th at an ap pe ll at e pa ne l ha d fo un d th e
in ve st ig at or “ ov er-r each ed in hi s at t e mp t to sh ow th at [Raym on d] sh ou ld be

di sc ip li ne d by [th e Uni ve rs it y .] ” Se e Am en de d Co m pl ai nt a t ¶ 9. Dur in g th e
in ve st ig at iv e pr oc es s, Raym on d co nt en ds he ne ve r ha d th e op po rtu ni ty to ex am in e or

cro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es

.

On Nov em

be r 19

, 20 12

, Raym on d su bm it te d a writ te n req ue st to th e Reg en ts

th at th ey in te rv en e as a co ur t of ap pe al an d pr ov id e hi m wit h a he ari ng to ad dr es s hi s

gr ie va nc es wit h res pe ct to th e in ve st ig at io n. The Reg en ts de ni ed th is req ue st th ro ug h

writ te n co rres po nd en ce da te d Decem be r 12

, 20 12

. On Apr il 10

, 20 13

, th e Uni ve rs it y
in fo rm ed Raym on d th at th e in ve st ig at io n co nc lu de d th ere was “ jus t cau se ” to

di sc ip li ne hi m fo r vi ol at io ns of Uni ve rs it y p o l i cy

. Raym on d req ue st ed th e

op po rtu ni ty to res po nd to th is le tt er, bu t was in fo rm ed on Apr il 25

, 20 13

, th at th e
Uni ve rs it y

ha d d eci de d t o t erm in at e h is em pl oym en t.

On May 1, 20 13

, Raym on d fil ed a pe ti ti on wit h th e Offi ce of Co nf li ct

Res ol ut io n (OCR) ch al le ng in g th e te rm in at io n an d req ue st in g a he ari ng

. Aro un d th is

ti m e, ne ws rep or ts were pu rp or te dl y ci rcu la ti ng reg ard i n g hi s di sc ha rg e an d th e

se xu al ha ras sm en t al le ga ti on s. On Aug us t 8 , 20 13

, th e OCR iss ue d a juri sd ic ti on al

d e c i si on to de te rm in e th e sc op e of pa ne l rev ie w in ad dr es si ng th e gr ou nd s f o r Raym on d’s di sc ha rg e. On Octo be r 13

, 20 13

, th e Pro vo st in te rv en ed an d ov ert ur ne d

th e OCR’s juri sd ic ti on al de ci si on by li m it in g th e sc op e of th e he ari ng to ex cl ud e th e

-3-se xu al ha ras sm en t al le ga ti on s fro m fu rth er rev ie w. R a ym on d co nt en ds th es e

al le ga ti on s wer e a b as is for th e Uni ve rs it y ’s ter m in at io n d eci si on

.

On Nov em

be r 7, 20 13

, Raym on d req ue st ed th at th e pr es id in g hea rin g offi cer

recu se he rs el f be cau se sh e ha d be en pr iv y to th e i n v e s t i ga ti ve rep or t th at le d to Raym on d’s di sc ha rg e, whi ch in cl ud ed th e se xu al ha ras sm en t al le ga tio ns. In ad di ti on , he req ue st ed a ne w he ari ng pa ne l an d th e su bm is si on of a red act ed rep or t ex cl ud in g
th e se xu al ha ras sm en t al le ga ti on s. Th e Uni ve rs it y de ni ed th es e req ue st s.

On Feb ru ary 5, 20 14

, Raym on d wit hd rew fro m th e he ari ng pr oc es s “ ba se d on
th e fu ti li ty of th e pr o c e s s an d it s in he ren t un fai rn es s an d bi as to ward s hi m , an d

be cau se of th e Uni ve rs it y ’s ba d fa i t h i n i t s de al in gs wit h hi m .” Se e Am en de d

Co m pl ai nt at ¶ 21

. Raym on d co nt en ds th at th e Uni ve rs it y us ed th e pr oc es s to ha ras s
hi m an d di sc ou rag e hi s le gi ti m at e de fen se s to di sc ha rg e. He al le ge s th at if he ha d

co nt in ue d to en ga ge in th e pr oc es s, whi ch he cl ai m s was un fai r an d bi as ed

, he wou ld

ha ve be en irr ep arab ly inju red

.

On Sep te m

be r 19

, 20 14

, Raym on d req ue st ed a po st -te rm in at io n he ari ng be fo re
th e Reg en ts to a d d r e s s a l l th e gr ou nd s fo r hi s di sc ha rg e. He al so req ue st ed th e Reg en ts co ns ul t ou ts id e co un se l be cau se th e Uni ve rs it y ’s co un se l ha d be en in vo lv ed

in th e in ve st ig at iv e, “ pr os ecu to ria l,” an d de ci si on -m ak in g pr oc es se s. The se req ue st s
were d en ie d.

Raym on d’s am en de d co m pl ai nt as se rte d two cl ai m s of pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s
vi ol at io ns —o ne ag ai ns t hi s li be rty in te res t an d th e ot he r ag ai ns t hi s pr op ert y in te res t.

He so ug ht da m ag es an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f.

B. Pro ceed in gs Bel ow

P u rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ) an d 12 (b )( 1 )

, t h e
Uni ve rs it y an d Reg en ts m ov ed to di sm is s th e am en de d co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e

-4-a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f co ul d be gr an te d an d la ck of su bjec t m a t te r juri sd ic ti on

.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an t e d th e m ot io n. It di sm is se d Raym on d’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e
Uni ve rs it y on El e v e n th Am en dm en t gr ou nd s an d si m il arl y ru le d th at th e Elev en th

A m en dm en t pr oh ib it s Raym on d fro m se ek in g da m ag es from the Re ge nts

. Ra y m ond’ s

ap pe al do es no t ad dr es s t he se is su es

.

W it h reg ard to in

jun ct iv e r e l i ef, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d Raym on d ha d fai le d

to st at e a du e pr oc es s cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f co ul d be gr an te d. In do in g so , th e co ur t

an al y zed whe th er th e Uni ve rs it y ’s pr e-t erm in at io n an d po st -te rm in at io n pr oc ed ur es were adeq ua te an d co nc lu de d th ey were. The co ur t als o fou nd th at Raym on d fail ed

to ex ha us t st at e rem ed ie s. The co ur t reject ed Raym on d’s al le ga ti on th at ex ha us ti on

wou ld ha ve be en fu ti le

, no ti ng th at fu ti li ty m us t be ba se d on cert ai nt y rat he r th an th e

su bjec ti v e b e l i e f of th e pe rs on as se rti ng fu ti li ty. The co ur t al so co nc lu de d th at th e
fu ti li ty excep ti on is no t av ai la bl e in th e co nt ex t of a § 19 83 pro ced ur al du e p ro ces s
cl ai m . Ray m on d a pp eal s t he di sm is sa l o f hi s cl ai m s fo r in jun ct iv e rel ie f.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w

“ ‘W he th er a co m

pl ai nt st at es a cau se of a ct io n i s a q ue st io n o f la w whi ch we

rev ie w on ap pe al de no vo .’ ” Pac ka rd v. Dar vea u , 75 9 F.3 d 89 7, 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Mil le r v. Red

wo od To xi co lo gy La b., In c. , 68 8 F.3 d 92 8, 93 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )).

U nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ), a de fen da nt m ay m ov e fo r di sm is sa l ba se d on a p l a i n t i f f ’s

“ fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f can be gr an te d.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b )(6 ).

“ W e wil l affi rm th e di sm is sa l if th e co m pl ai nt fai ls to al le ge fact s su ffi ci en t to ‘stat e

a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face.’” Hop ki ns v. Ci ty of Blo omi ng to n , 77 4

F.3 d 49 0, 49 1- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng W al ker v. Bar re tt
, 65 0 F.3 d 1 1 9 8

, 1 20 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )). “ A cl ai m ha s faci al pl au si bi li ty whe n th e pl a i n t i f f pl ead s fact ua l

co nt en t th at al lo ws th e co ur t to dr aw th e reas on ab l e i n fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt is

li ab le fo r th e m is co nd uc t al le ge d.” Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. 6 62 , 67 8 (2 00 9)

.

-5-B. Ray m on d’s Due Pro ces s Cl ai m s

Raym on d al le ge s th at he was de pr iv ed of li be rty an d pr op ert y in te res ts wit ho ut

du e pr oc es s whe n hi s em

pl oym en t wit h th e Uni ve rs it y was te rm in at ed

. The Reg en ts

a nd Uni ve rs it y do no t ch al le ng e th e ad eq ua cy of Raym on d’s al le ge d in te res ts

. Rat he r, th ey arg ue Raym on d di d no t sa ti sf y a co nd it io n of hi s pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s
cl ai m s— ex ha us ti on of st at e rem ed ie s. Fo r th is reas on , th ey arg ue th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de ci si on sh ou ld be affi rm ed

.

“ [T]he ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t is an affi rm at iv e de fen se th at a de fen da nt m us t

p l e a d a n d pr ov e.” Na sh v. La pp in

, 17 2 F. App ’x 70 2, 70 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (p er

c u r i a m). H o wev er, “ [i]f an affi rm at iv e de fen se

. . . is ap pa ren t on th e face of t h e

co m pl ai nt

. . . th at [d efen se ] can pr ov id e th e ba si s fo r di sm is sa l un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ).”

C.H. Rob in so n W

or ld wi de

, In c. v. Lo br an o , 69 5 F.3 d 75 8, 76 4 (8 t h C ir. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng No bl e Sy s. Co rp

. v. Alo ri ca Cen t., LLC

, 54 3 F.3 d 97 8, 98 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )) (al te rat i o n s in or ig in al ). “ Gen eral ly, a pl ai nt iff is no t req ui red to ex ha us t st at e
ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as a pr ereq ui si te to br in gi ng an act io n pu rs ua nt to § 19 83 .”
Hop ki ns , 7 74 F.3 d at 49 2 (ci ti ng Pat sy v. Bd. of

Rege nt s o f Fl a. , 45 7 U.S. 49 6, 51 6 (1 98 2) ). Howev er, th is co ur t ha s “ r e c o g ni zed an ex cep ti on to Pat sy ’s ge ne ral ru le

th at ex ha us ti on of st at e rem ed ie s pr io r to b r i n g i n g a se ct io n 19 83 cl ai m is no t

req ui red .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Kea ti ng v. Neb

. Pub

. Pow er Dis t.
, 56 2 F.3 d 92 3, 92 9 (8 th Ci r.
20 09 )). “ Und er fed eral la w, a li t i g a n t as se rti ng a de pr iv at io n of pr oc ed ur al du e

pr oc es s m

us t ex ha us t st at e rem ed ie s be fo re su ch an al le ga ti on st at es a cl ai m un de r §

19 83 .” Id

. (q uo ti ng W

ax ‘n W or ks v. Ci ty of St

. Pau l

, 21 3 F.3 d 10 16

, 10 19 (8 th Ci r.
20 00 )).

“ [A]n em pl oyee who fai ls to req ue st po st -te rm in at io n pr oc es s can no t la te r su e
fo r ha vi ng be en de pr iv ed of it .” W in sk ow sk i v. Ci ty of St ep he n , 44 2 F.3 d 11 07

, 11 11 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 6) ; se e al

so Kr en tz v. Rob er ts on , 22 8 F.3 d 89 7, 90 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ [A]n em

pl oyee waiv es a pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m by refu si ng to pa rti ci pa te in

po st -te rm in at io n ad m in is tra ti ve o r gr ie va nc e pr oc ed ur es m ad e av ai la bl e by th e

-6-st at e.”). “ [T]his req ui rem en t i s di st in ct fro m ex ha us ti on req ui rem en ts in ot he r

c o n t e x t s .” Cr oo ks v. Lyn ch

, 55 7 F.3 d 84 6, 84 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). “ Rat he r, th i s

req ui rem en t is ne ces sa ry f o r a p r o ced ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m to be rip e fo r
ad jud ic at io n.” Id

. A p l a i n t iff “ can no t co m pl ai n of a vi ol at io n of pr oc ed ur al du e

pr oc es s whe n he ha s no t av ai le d hi m se lf of ex is ti ng pr oc ed ur es .” And e r s o n v.
Dou gl as Cn ty

. , 4 F.3 d 5 74 , 57 8 (8 th Cir . 19 93 ).

Alt ho ug h R ay m on d’s am en de d co m pl ai nt fo cu se s pr im ari ly o n t he ad eq ua cy
of th e po st -te rm in at io n pr oc ed ur es , we m us t fir st co ns id er whe th er he ha s su ffi ci en tl y
al le ge d a pr e-t erm in at io n pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n, whi ch wou ld no t req ui re

ex ha us ti on

. Se e Kea ti ng , 56 2 F.3 d at 92 9 (“ [I]t is no t ne ces sa ry fo r a li ti ga nt to ha ve

ex ha us te d av ai la bl e po st de pr iv at io n rem ed ie s whe n th e li ti ga nt co nt en ds th at he was

en ti tl ed to pr ed

ep ri va ti on pr oc es s.”) (em p h a s i s i n or ig in al )). In th e co nt ex t of a

pu bl ic em pl oyee’s di sc ha rg e, a pr e-t erm in at io n he ari ng is req ui red

, al th ou gh it “ ne ed

no t be el ab or at e.” Cl evel an d Bd. of Edu c. v. Lo ud er mil l

, 47 0 U.S. 53 2, 54 5 (1 98 5) ;

se e al so Ch ri st ia ns en v. W

es t Bra nc h Co mm. Sc h. Dis t.
, 67 4 F.3 d 92 7, 93 4 (8 th Ci r.
2012 ) (“ D ue pr oc es s do es no t req ui re el ab or at e pr e-t er m ina tio n pr oc ed

ur es , es pe ci al ly

whe re m ean in gf

ul po st -te rm in at io n p ro ces s i s av ai la bl e.”).

“ The ess en ti al req ui rem en ts of d ue pro ces s . . . a re no ti ce an d an op po rtu ni ty

to re s p o n d

. ” Lo ud er mil l

, 47 0 U.S. at 54 6. “ To sa ti sf y m in im al du e-p ro ces s

req ui rem en ts at th e pr e-t erm in at io n st ag e , a p ub li c em pl oyer m us t gi ve th e pu bl ic

em pl oyee or al or writ te n no ti ce of th e ch arg es ag a i n st hi m , an ex pl an at io n of th e

em pl oyer’s ev id en ce, an d an op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t hi s si de of th e st or y .” Smu tk a v.
Ci ty of Hut ch in so n , 45 1 F

. 3 d 52 2, 52 6- 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns

om it te d)

. “ To req ui re m or e th an th is pr io r to t e r mina ti on wou ld in tru de to an

un warra nt ed ex te n t on th e go ve rn m en t’s in te res t in qu ic kl y rem ov in g an

un sa ti sf act or y em pl oyee.” Id

.

-7-Raym on d al le ge s t h a t whe n th e Uni ve rs it y be ga n in ve st ig at in g th e al le ge d

vi ol at io ns of sc ho ol po li ci es , he de ni ed th e al le ga ti on s an d ap pe al ed th e co nc lu si on s,
wit h each ap pe al be in g de te rm in ed ag ai ns t hi m

. Raym on d pr es en te d ev id en ce of bi as

an d co l lu si on to th e Uni ve rs it y , whi ch le d an ap pe ll at e pa ne l to de te rm in e th at

in ve st ig at io n co ul d no t be us ed ag ai ns t Raym o n d

. Raym on d ob jecte d to a ne w
in ve st ig at io n on do ub le jeop ard y an d du e pr oc es s gr ou nd s. His req ue st was de ni ed

. He th en req ue st ed to be in vo lv ed in th e se le ct io n of a ne w in ve st ig at or

. Tha t req ue st

was de ni ed

. Fi na ll y , he req ue st ed th at th e ne w i nv es ti ga to r recu se hi m se lf. Tha t

req ue st was al so de ni ed

. Fo ll owi ng th e se co nd in ve st ig at io n, Raym on d su bm it te d a
writ te n req ue st to th e Reg en ts to si t as a co ur t of ap pe al an d pr ov id e hi m a he ari ng to

ad dr es s hi s gr ie va nc es

. Tha t req ue st was de ni ed th ro ug h wri t t e n c o r res po nd en ce. Raym on d t h e n rece iv ed a le tt er da te d Apr il 10

, 20 13

, ad vi si ng hi m th at th e
i n v e s t i g at iv e rep or t fo un d “ jus t cau se ” to di sc ip li ne Raym on d fo r vi ol at in g sc ho ol

po li ci es

. Raym on d req ue st ed an op po rtu ni ty to res po nd

, bu t rece iv ed a le tt er on Apr il

25 , 20 13 , no ti fy in g h im

hi s emplo y m en t h ad be en ter m in at ed

.

The se al le ga ti on s, ta ke n as tru e fro m Raym on d’s ame nd ed co m pl ai nt
, fai l to

st at e a cl ai m of a pr e-t erm in at io n du e pr oc es s vi ol a t i o n

. I n d eed

, th ey es ta bl is h th e

op po si te

. Raym on d was ad vi se d of th e al le ga ti on s an d ev id en ce ag ai ns t hi m

. He ha d

th e op po rtu ni ty to res po nd

, an d di d res po nd

, to th e al le ga ti on s. In de ed

, th e Uni ve rs it y

ag reed wit h hi s co m

pl ai nt s of bi as an d co ll us io n as to on e in ve st ig at io n an d or de red

a ne w in ve st ig at io n. Dur in g th e su bs eq ue nt in ve st ig at ion

, th e Uni ve rs it y an d Reg en ts

res po nd ed to Raym on d’s req ue st s. His on ly com pl ai nt ab ou t t hi s p ro ces s i s t ha t h e

was ne ve r affo rd ed th e op po rtu ni ty to ex am in e or cro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es

. Thi s type

of fo rm al pr oc es s is no t req ui red pr io r to te rm in at io n. Se e Mat he ws v. Eld ri dg e , 42 4

U.S. 31 9, 34 3 (1 97 6) (n ot in g th at “ so m et hi ng le ss th an an ev id en t i a r y h e ari ng is

su ffi ci en t pr io r to ad ve rs e ad m in is tra ti ve act io n.” ). Bec au se Raym on d di d no t

su ffi ci en tl y pl ead a pr e-t erm in at io n pro ced ur al du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n, ex ha us ti on of

st at e rem ed ie s i s re qu ire d t o p ro ceed on hi s p os t-t erm in at io n c la im

.

-8-Raym on d’s am en de d co m pl ai nt ack no wled ge s th at he wit hd rew fro m th e po st

te rm in at io n OCR pr oc es s by wit hd rawi ng hi s p et it io n on Feb ru ary 5, 20 14

. The refo re, he di d no t ex ha us t st at e r e med ie s. Howev er, Raym on d co nt en ds th is

fai lu re is no t de tri m en ta l to hi s cl ai m

. He al le ge s th at he wit hd rew fro m th e pr oc es s

“ ba se d on th e fu ti li ty of th e pr oc es s an d it s in he ren t un fai rn es s an d bi as to ward s hi m ,

an d be cau se of th e Uni ve rs it y ’s ba d fai th in it s de al in gs w i t h hi m .” Se e Am en de d

Co m pl ai nt at ¶ 21

. Raym on d arg ue s we sh ou ld reco gn iz e fu ti li ty as an ex cep ti on to

th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t in th e co nt ex t of a pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m an d al lo w
hi m to pro ceed wit h h is laws ui t.

C. Futi li ty Raym on d arg ue s th e OCR pr oc es s was fu ti le fo r two rea s o n s : (1 ) he di d no t

ha ve th e op po rtu ni ty to co nf ro nt an d cro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es an d (2 ) th e Pro vo st ’s juri sd ic ti on al ru li ng de ni ed hi m a na m e-cl eari ng he a r i n g on th e se xu al ha ras sm en t

al le ga ti on s th at were pa rt of th e ba si s fo r hi s te rm in at io n. Fo r th es e reas on s, he 4

arg ue s th is co ur t sh ou ld reco gn iz e a fu ti li ty ex cep ti on to th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t.

Thi s co ur t ha s reco gn iz ed ex cep ti on s to ex ha us ti on req ui rem en ts in ot he r

co nt ex ts

. Se e, e.g ., Ace Pro pe rt y an d Ca s. In s. Co

. v. Fed

. Cr op In s. Co rp

. , 44 0 F.3 d

99 2, 10 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ A pa rty m ay be ex cu se d fro m ex ha us ti ng ad m in is tra ti ve

r e med i e s if th e co m

pl ai nt in vo lv es a le gi ti m at e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m , if ex ha us ti on

wou ld cau se irr ep arab le ha rm , if fu rth er ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc ed ur es wou ld be fu ti le

. . .

or if th e is su es to be de ci de d are pr im ari ly le ga l rat he r th an fact ua l.”)

. An

ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed y is fu ti le “ if th ere is do ub t ab ou t whe th er th e ag en cy co ul d gr an t

effe ct iv e rel ie f.” Id

. Not ab ly, Ace di d no t in vo lv e a § 1 98 3 p ro ced ur al du e pr oc es s

The reco rd is si le nt as to whe th er Raym on d ev er co m pl ai ne d of th es e 4

pe rcei ve d de fic ie nc ie s to th e Uni ve rs it y or Reg en ts pr io r t o w i th dr awin g hi s OCR

pe ti ti on

.

-9-cl ai m , bu t an al le ge d br each of co nt ract b y a n a d mi n is tra ti ve ag en cy

. Id

. at 99 5.

Exh au st io n o f ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s was m an da te d b y st at ut e. Id

.

Thi s co ur t ha s ne ve r he ld th at th e ex c e p t i o n s reco gn iz ed in Ace ap pl y in th e

co nt ex t of § 19 83 pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m s. Raym on d su gg es ts
, ho wev er, th at

no ne of ou r cas es pr ecl ud e it

. He di st in gu is he s W in sk ow sk i

, 44 2 F.3 d at 11 10

, a cas e
th e di st ric t co ur t ci te d fo r th e pr op os it io n th at an in di v i d u a l w ho di d no t ta ke

ad va nt ag e of a po st -te rm in at io n pr oc e s s c a nn ot cl ai m th at it was in ad eq ua te

. Raym on d arg ue s W

in sk ow sk i is in ap pl ic ab le be cau se un li ke th e W in sk ow sk i pl ai nt iff

, who fai le d to req ue st an y po st -te rm in at io n pr oc es s, Raym on d req ue st ed th at pr oc es s

an d wit hd rew fro m it on ly whe n he co nc lu de d th at it was fu ti le

. He ci te s Sc hl eck v.
Rams ey Cn ty

. , 93 9 F.2 d 63 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ), to arg ue th at fu ti li ty sh ou ld be

reco gn iz ed as an ex cep ti on in th is co nt ex t. In Sc hl eck

, th is co ur t he ld th at th ere was

no du e proc es s vio la tion whe n co un ty em pl oyees de cl in ed a po st -te rm in at io n he ari ng

. Sc hl eck

, 93 9 F.2 d at 64 3. Raym on d no te s th at th e po st -te r mi n a t i on pr oc es s in th at

c a s e e xp li ci tl y in cl ud ed th e rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es an d res po nd to t h e
ch arg es ag ai ns t th em , id

., an d as se rts th at th os e rig ht s wer e o mi t t e d fro m th e po st

te rm in at io n pr oc ed ur es he re. Ess en ti al ly, Raym on d su g g e s t s t ha t if a po st

te rm in at io n pr oc es s do es no t gu aran te e cert ai n rig ht s ( i.e.

, th e rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e
wit ne ss es an d res po nd to ch arg es ), th e cl ai m an t sh ou ld no t ha ve to ex ha us t rem ed ie s

an d s ho ul d b e p erm it te d t o a ll eg e fu ti li ty.

W i t h r e g a rd to th e po st -te rm in at io n pr oc es s he re, pa rag rap h 9 of th e
Uni ve rs it y ’s co nf

li ct res ol ut io n pr oc ed u res fo r ci vi l se rv ic e em pl oyee co m

pl ai nt s 5

pr ov id es , “ [t]he he ar i n g pa ne l wil l pr ov id e a fai r op po rtu ni ty fo r th e pe ti ti on er an d

“ Tho ug h m at te rs ou ts id e th e pl ead in g m a y n o t b e co ns id ered in de ci di ng a 5

Ru le 12 m ot io n to di sm is s, do cu m en ts ne ces sa ril y em br aced by th e co m

pl ai nt are no t

m at te rs ou ts i d e t h e p l e ad in g.” Gor og v. Best Buy Co

. In c. , 76 0 F.3 d 78 7, 79 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Ash an ti v. Ci ty of Gol de n Val le y , 66 6 F.3 d 11 48

, 11 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )).

-10-th e res po nd en t to pr es en t th ei r vi ews an d in fo rm at io n fro m wit ne ss es .” Se e

App el la nt ’s App ’x at 36

. Eve n if the op po rtu ni ty to cro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es at th e
OCR hear in g was am

bi gu ou s, t ha t d oe s n ot jus ti fy fo reg oi ng th e pr oc es s alt og et he r

on gr ou nd s of fu ti li ty. Se e Bro wn v. J.B. Hun t Tr an sp . Ser vs ., Inc

. , 58 6 F .3d 10 79

, 10 85 (8 th Ci r

. 20 09 ) (“ The fu ti li ty ex cep ti on is na rro w—t he pl an pa rti ci pa nt m us t

sh ow th at it is cert ai n t ha t [h is ] cl ai m wil l b e d en ie d o n a pp eal , no t m erel y th at [h e]

do ub ts th at an ap pe al wil l res u l t i n a di ffer en t de ci si on .”) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns

om it te d)

. Pro pe r gr ou nd s of fu ti li ty in cl ud e th e si tu at io n in whi ch an ag en cy m ay be

“ un ab le to co ns id er whe th er to gr an t rel ie f be cau se it la ck s in st it ut io na l co m pe te nc e

to res ol ve th e pa rti cu la r type of is su e pr es en te d” or “ an ag en cy m ay be co m pe te nt to

ad jud ic at e th e is su e pr es en te d, bu t st il l l a c k a u t h o rit y to gr an t th e type of rel ie f

r e q u e s t e d

. ” Se e Bar tl et t v. U.S. Dep t. of Agr ic ul tu re , 71 6 F.3 d 46 4, 47 3 (8 th Ci r

. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng McCa rt hy v. Mad ig an , 50 3 U.S. 14 0, 14 7- 48 (1 99 2)

, su pe rs ed ed by

st at ut e , Pri so n Lit ig at io n Refo rm Act of 19 95

, 4 2 U

. S

. C. §1 99 7e et se q. , as

re co gn iz ed

in W oo df or d v . Ngo , 54 8 U.S. 8 1 (2 00 6) ).

R ay m on d ha s no t su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d th at pr oc eed in g wit h th e OCR h e a r i n g

wou ld ha ve be en fu ti le

. He ha s on ly sp ecu la te d th at he wou ld no t be al l o w e d t o

cro ss -ex am in e wit n e ss es an d th at th e OCR pa ne l wou ld no t co ns id er th e se xu al

ha ras sme n t a l l eg at io ns

. Se e Mid ge tt v. W

as hi ng to n Gro up In te rn

. Lo ng Ter m
Dis ab il it y Pla n , 56 1 F .3d 88 7, 8 98 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (“ [u ]nsu pp or te d a nd sp ecu la ti ve
cl ai m s of fu ti li ty do no t ex cu se a cl ai m an t’s fai lu re to ex ha us t h i s or he r
ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s.”) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Raym on d co ul d ha ve
ch al le ng ed th es e is su es at th e OCR he ari ng an d, if th e ou tc om e was un f a v o r a b l e , ap pe al ed th em to th e Pro vo st

. He th en co ul d ha ve so ug ht cert io rari rev ie w by th e
Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s or de m an de d bi nd in g arb it rat io n in acco rd an ce wit h th e
Uni ve rs it y ’s co nf

li ct rev ie w pr oc ed ur es . At an y of th es e st ag es , th e pr es id in g bo dy

or in di vi du al co ul d ha ve ru le d in Raym on d’s fav or

. Non e of th e al le ga ti on s es ta bl is h,

-11-wit h cert ai nt y , th at th e fin al ou tc om e of th e pr oc es s wou ld ha ve be en ad v e r s e t o

Raym on d. Fo r th is reas on , Ray m on d’s fu ti li ty argu m en t fa il s. 6

II I. CONCLUSI ON
Raym on d’s § 19 83 pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s c l a i ms were pr op erl y di sm is se d.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I co nc ur in th e jud gm en t of th e m ajor it y affi rm in g th e di sm is sa l of Raym on d’s
§ 19 83 pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m s bu t I writ e se pa rat el y to ex pr es s two po in ts

. Fi rs t, as id e fro m a few swe ep in g ge ne ral it ie s, Raym on d’s br ie fin g in vo ke s on ly po st

7

te rm in at io n du e pr oc es s req ui rem en ts an d he do e s n o t a pp eal th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ru li ng as to th e pr e-t erm in at io n pr oc ed ur es

. I th eref or e w o u ld refr ai n fro m an y
di sc us si on of Raym on d’s pr e-t erm in at io n du e pr oc es s rig ht s. Ja sp ers on v. Pu ro la to r
Co ur ie r Co rp ., 76 5 F.2 d 73 6, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (is su es no t rai se d in a pa rty’ s br ie f

are d eem ed ab an do ne d)

.

Seco nd

, reg ard in g po st -te rm in at io n du e pr oc es s, Raym on d’s fu ti li ty arg um en t

is un su pp or te d. As th e m ajor it y no te s, th e cas es reco gn iz in g fu ti li ty as an ex cep ti on

to th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t do no t in vo lv e § 19 83 pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m s.
See McC art hy v. Mad ig an , 50 3 U.S. 14 0, 14 9 (1 99 2 ) ( B i v e n s cl ai m fo r m on ey
d a mag e s ) ; Bro wn v. J.B

. Hun t Tran sp

. Serv s., In c., 58 6 F.3 d 10 79

, 10 85 (8 th C i r

. 20 09 ) (ERISA acti on ); Ace Pro p. & Cas . Ins . Co. v . Fed . Cro p In s. Co rp ., 44 0 F .3d

Bec au se Raym on d’s al le ga ti on s are in su ffi ci en t to su pp o rt a cl ai m th at 6

ex ha us ti on wou ld ha ve be en fu ti le , we ne ed no t d eci de whet he r fu ti li ty is av ai la bl e

as an ex cep ti on to th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t i n a pro ced ur al du e p ro ces s cl ai m

.

Fo r ex am pl e: “ Raym on d cl ai m s th at th e en ti re pr oc es s was in fect ed fro m st art 7

to fin is h.” And : “ Raym on d was ne ve r, pr e-t erm in at io n or po st -te rm in at io n,

. . . gi ve n th e ri gh t t o c on fro nt an d c ro ss -ex am in e [wi tn es se s].”

-12-99 2, 10 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (b reac h of co nt ract cl ai m un de r th e Fed eral Cro p In su ran ce

Act)

. Rat he r, th e la w in th is co nt ex t is se tt le d: Fu ti li ty is no t an ex cep ti on to th e

req ui rem en t th at a li ti ga nt ex ha us t hi s st at e rem ed ie s i n o r d e r to pu rs ue a § 19 83

pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m

. See Ch ris ti an se n v. W

. Bran ch Cm ty. Sch

. Dis t., 67 4

F.3 d 92 7, 93 5- 36 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ [A] go ve rn m en t em pl oyee who ch oo se s no t to

pu rs ue av ai la bl e po st -te rm in at io n rem ed ie s can no t la te r cl ai m , vi a a § 19 83 su it in

fed eral di st ric t co ur t, th at he was de ni ed po st -te rm in at io n due pr oc es s. ”) ; W ins kowski

v. Ci ty of St ep he n, 4 42 F.3 d 11 07 , 11 10 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (“ [A]n em pl oyee who fai ls

to req ue st po st -te rm in at io n pr oc es s can no t la te r su e fo r ha vi ng be en de pr iv ed of it .”).

Our co ur t r e

je ct ed an arg um en t si m il ar to Raym on d’s fu ti li ty cl ai m in Ri gg in s v.
Bo ard of R eg en ts of Un iv ers it y of Neb ras ka

, 79 0 F.2d 70 7, 71 1- 12 (8t h C ir. 1 98 6)

. I n t h at cas e, a te rm in at ed em pl oyee al le ge d th at th e Uni ve rs it y ’s pr oc es s f o r

po st -te rm in at io n gr ie va nc es was co ns ti tu ti on a l l y in su ffi ci en t be cau se it wou ld no t

h a v e al lo wed he r to co nf ro nt or cro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es

. Id

. at 71 1. Afte r

co nc lu di ng th at th e pr oc es s wou ld ha ve be en ad eq ua te
, th e co ur t st at ed th at
,

no ne th el es s, th e pl ai nt iff “ ch os e no t to fil e a gr ie va nc e. In so ch oo si ng , sh e waiv ed

an y cla im th at th e gr ie va nc e pr oc ed ur e di d no t affo rd he r th e p ro ces s s he was d ue .”

Id

. at 71 2. S i n c e R i g g i n s , we ha ve co ns is te nt ly he ld th at a pl ai nt iff can no t br in g a § 1 9 8 3 p ro ced ur al du e pr oc es s ch al le ng e to th e ad eq ua cy of po st -d ep riv at io n

rem ed ie s wit ho ut fir st ex ha us ti ng th os e rem ed ie s. Hop ki ns v. Ci ty of Bl oo m in gt on , 77 4 F.3 d 49 0, 49 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Ch ris ti an se n, 67 4 F

. 3d at 93 5- 36 ; W in sk ows ki

, 44 2 F .3d at 1 11 0.

Bec ause Ra

y m ond’s in vo cat io n of fu ti li ty la ck s le ga l au th or it y , th ere is no ne ed

to an al y ze wh et he r th e Uni ve rs it y ’s po st -te rm in at io n pro ced ur es were in fact fu ti le

. I in st ead co nc lu de th at Raym on d waiv ed hi s § 19 83 pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m by

fai li ng to pu rs ue th e po st -te r mi n a t i o n pr oc es se s av ai la bl e to hi m an d hi s cl ai m
th eref or e fai ls as a m at te r of

law. Ch ris ti an se n, 6 74 F.3d at 9 36

.

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

-13-