Garrison v. Minnesota Department of Revenue of the State of Minnesota

Background

Peter Garrison represented himself in this civil-rights employment case against the Minnesota Department of Revenue and four employees: Gina Armacher, Kennedy Gisemba, David Denault, and Angela Smedlund. Garrison alleged discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The complaint alleged that Garrison worked for the Department of Revenue for thirty years and received positive reviews and awards. He alleged that he was subjected to additional audit procedures, did not receive requested audit assignments, was suspended, and received a disciplinary document on October 6, 2022, which appeared to concern a termination. He also alleged that he was treated differently because of his race and disability, was denied an accommodation, and was retaliated against for filing a discrimination lawsuit in 2014. The court noted that it was unclear whether he was fired, resigned, or was forced to resign.

Garrison filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 1, 2023. The charge referred to retaliation for the 2014 lawsuit, denial of an accommodation, and constructive discharge on or about October 6, 2022. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Before bringing most Title VII or Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination claims in federal court, a plaintiff must first timely file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or an authorized state or local agency. The court found that Garrison’s hostile-workplace and harassment claims were not raised or suggested in his administrative charge. It also found that claims based on failure to promote, stricter workplace requirements, temporary suspensions, and general disparate treatment based on race or disability were not reasonably related to the charge.

The court further concluded that most of the specific workplace incidents described in the complaint occurred before the relevant 300-day filing period. It held that the claims involving harassment or a hostile workplace, failure to promote, and general disparate treatment were unexhausted and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The court found that the claims involving constructive discharge or termination based on retaliation or race or disability discrimination were adequately exhausted.

The court stated that the exhaustion status of any accommodation claim was unclear because Garrison did not provide enough detail about when he requested an accommodation. It said it would consider that issue if he amended his complaint.

Claims against individual defendants

The court held that Title VII claims may be brought only against employers, not individual supervisors, coworkers, or managers. It also held that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not permit individual liability. Because the complaint did not allege that Armacher, Gisemba, Denault, or Smedlund was Garrison’s employer, the court dismissed all claims against those four individuals with prejudice.

The court also declined to construe the complaint as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Garrison referred to that statute and to concepts associated with it, he did not identify a § 1983 claim in his three counts, and he did not challenge the defendants’ characterization of the case as involving Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Failure to state a claim

The court separately held that the complaint did not adequately state several claims:

- Hostile workplace and harassment: Garrison did not describe conduct that was severe or pervasive, and he did not clearly connect the alleged conduct to race. - Failure to promote: He did not identify a specific promotion for which he applied, explain when he applied, allege that he was qualified, or identify a similarly qualified person of another race who received the promotion. - Constructive discharge: The alleged suspensions, audit requirements, lack of assignments, and termination notice did not show that the workplace was so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. The complaint also lacked specific facts connecting those events to race. - Termination discrimination: The complaint did not clearly explain whether Garrison was terminated or resigned, why or how the employment ended, or facts supporting an inference that race caused the termination. - Retaliation: The court held that the eight-year gap between Garrison’s 2014 lawsuit and the alleged termination was too long, by itself, to support a causal connection. - Disability discrimination and failure to accommodate: Garrison mentioned diabetes and depression but did not allege facts showing that either condition substantially limited a major life activity, that he sought and was denied an accommodation because of a disability, or that the Department of Revenue knew about a qualifying disability.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Menendez granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. The claims against the four individual defendants and the unexhausted claims were dismissed with prejudice. The exhausted claims, including claims related to termination, were dismissed without prejudice. The court gave Garrison until October 20, 2024, to file an amended complaint repleading claims that were not dismissed with prejudice.