Kasso v. Police Officers' Federation of Minneapolis

Background

Leila Kasso, a Black woman and former Minneapolis Police Department officer, sued her union, the Police Officers’ Federation of Minneapolis. She alleged that after a 2018 medical episode and a leave from work, the Federation undermined her and failed to represent her fairly in a dispute about returning to employment. She alleged that Federation representatives made inaccurate statements about her medical conditions and possible drug and alcohol use, and that the Federation selectively assisted white male members in comparable or more serious situations.

The Federation moved to dismiss Kasso’s Second Amended Complaint. It argued that her claims concerned conduct attributable to the city or police department, were time-barred, and did not satisfy the federal pleading requirement for a short and plain statement. It alternatively sought a more definite statement, which is a request for clearer allegations.

Title VII claim

Title VII is a federal law prohibiting employment discrimination based on characteristics including race and sex. The court concluded that Kasso adequately pleaded a Title VII discrimination claim against the Federation. It found that her allegations described discrimination by the union itself, distinct from her dispute with the city and police department, and that they plausibly alleged that the Federation undermined her employment and failed to assist her as it would have assisted a white male officer.

The court also found that Kasso had adequately alleged, at the pleading stage, that she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Federation. The court explained that exhaustion of that administrative process is generally an affirmative defense that the defendant must raise and prove. It declined to resolve the precise time limits for Kasso’s Title VII claims on this motion because her allegations covered conduct from 2018 to 2020 and overlapped with the period the Federation said could be considered. The court stated that the Federation could seek to narrow the case after discovery, at summary judgment, or at trial.

Other claims

The court dismissed Kasso’s breach-of-duty-of-fair-representation claim. It determined that the Second Amended Complaint again alleged conduct occurring more than six months before the lawsuit and that Kasso knew of the alleged failures when they occurred. The court applied the six-month limitations period for this type of claim under the Labor Management Relations Act.

The court also dismissed the breach-of-contract claim. It construed Kasso’s allegations as attempting to assert a hybrid claim involving a collective bargaining agreement, a union’s duty of fair representation, and alleged contract violations. Even assuming that the claim was adequately pleaded, the court held that it was subject to the same six-month limitations period and was untimely based on the face of the complaint.

The court dismissed the negligence claim because Kasso did not plausibly allege a duty of care independent of a contract. The court also dismissed the fraud claim because the allegations did not identify the specific person who committed the alleged fraud, explain how the alleged discriminatory conduct constituted fraud, or provide the required details about when the alleged fraud occurred. Fraud claims must be pleaded with particularity, meaning enough specific information about the alleged statements and conduct to give notice of what is being claimed.

Disposition

Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered that the Federation’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was granted to the extent that Kasso’s claims for breach of the duty of fair representation, breach of contract, fraud, and negligence were dismissed without prejudice. The motion was otherwise denied, leaving the Title VII claim in the case at this stage.