Kasso v. City of Minneapolis

Background

Leila Kasso sued the City of Minneapolis over alleged treatment she experienced while employed as a police officer with the Minneapolis Police Department. She alleged that, around April 2021 and during the conclusion of Derek Chauvin’s criminal trial, Christy Nelson assigned her to an underground basement without backup, internet, radio communication, or a way to call for help. Kasso alleged that other light-duty officers received safer assignments, that she was required to wear a full police uniform despite her medical restrictions, and that she was later placed in a desk assignment and prevented from returning to uniformed patrol duty.

Kasso also alleged that she was denied a reasonable accommodation, faced hostility and retaliation after invoking her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), had confidential medical information accessed and used against her, and was denied promotions because of her disability. She alleged that a transfer request was denied and that her office door, protective window shield, and desk were damaged or disturbed. She asserted five claims: ADA discrimination, ADA retaliation, an ADA confidentiality violation, equal-protection violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She sought damages and attorney’s fees.

Court’s analysis

The City moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a plausible legal claim. The court said that, although it must generally accept factual allegations as true and read a self-represented party’s complaint liberally, it need not accept conclusory statements or legal conclusions without supporting facts.

For ADA discrimination, the court held that Kasso did not adequately allege that she had a disability covered by the ADA. The complaint did not describe symptoms, treatment, or diagnoses from which the court could infer a qualifying disability.

For ADA retaliation, the court held that Kasso did not allege facts showing that she engaged in protected activity. In particular, the complaint did not plausibly allege that she requested a reasonable accommodation. The court also found that the retaliation allegations were conclusory.

For the ADA confidentiality claim, the court held that Kasso did not provide facts identifying the protected medical information, explaining how Nelson accessed it, showing how it influenced adverse employment actions, or identifying those actions with sufficient detail.

For the equal-protection claim, the court treated the claim against the City as a municipal-liability claim under § 1983. The court explained that a city is not automatically responsible for its employees’ conduct. Kasso needed to identify an official city policy, an unofficial custom, or a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise that caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court held that she had not identified or described any such policy, custom, or failure.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kasso’s state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it dismissed all of the federal claims. It dismissed that claim without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss. The final order dismissed Kasso’s complaint without prejudice. The court also noted that the City had raised serious concerns that the ADA claims were filed outside the 90-day period after Kasso received her notice of the right to sue. The court did not base the dismissal on that timing issue, but warned that a new lawsuit asserting claims that were clearly time-barred could be futile.

The opinion’s opening paragraph says that the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, but the later analysis states that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate, and the operative order dismisses the complaint without prejudice.