Hussey v. MN State Services for the Blind

Background

Alexandra Noelle Hussey, who is legally blind, sued Minnesota State Services for the Blind (SSB), the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), and four DEED employees: Carol Pandow, Brianna Mehr, Natasha Lemler, and Maurita Christensen. Hussey represented herself.

Hussey alleged that, between 2007 and 2014, SSB and its employees improperly handled her vocational-rehabilitation services. She claimed that SSB pressured her to update an independent plan for employment, failed to provide adequate job-placement assistance, rejected or delayed action on her horticulture-business plans, and eventually stopped working with her, forcing her to withdraw from the program. She also alleged that a 2014 assessment contained false information about her service dog and defamatory statements about her personality and thought processes, and that SSB shared the information with at least two people outside the agency.

Hussey’s amended complaint asserted claims under the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Social Security Act, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. She also asserted state common-law claims, including defamation, emotional distress, negligence, fraud, and bribery. She sought damages, punitive damages, removal of the allegedly false information, and an apology and admission of guilt.

Motion to Dismiss

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

State-law claims and state immunity. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment, which generally limits federal lawsuits against a nonconsenting state, barred Hussey’s state-law claims against DEED and SSB because they are state agencies. Because Hussey did not specifically allege individual-capacity claims against the individual defendants, the court treated her state-law claims against them as official-capacity claims. The court held that those claims were also barred.

Official-capacity claims under Section 1983. Hussey brought equal-protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants in their official capacities. Section 1983 provides a remedy for certain violations of constitutional rights by state actors, but the court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims against SSB and DEED. It also held that a state and state officials acting in their official capacities are not treated as legally responsible “persons” under Section 1983. The claims against SSB and DEED were dismissed with prejudice; the official-capacity claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed.

Individual-capacity equal-protection claims. The court dismissed Hussey’s individual-capacity equal-protection claims because she did not allege specific examples showing that the defendants treated her differently from similarly situated disabled people using SSB’s services. The court said that dissatisfaction with the services, procedures, and interactions with SSB employees did not establish an equal-protection violation. It also found that Hussey’s allegations about defamatory statements were not specific enough to show unequal treatment.

Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, and disability claims. The court dismissed Hussey’s Rehabilitation Act claims because she had not filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which the court said was required before filing the lawsuit. It dismissed her Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act claims because she had not received the required notice allowing her to sue.

The court also stated that, even if Hussey had completed the required administrative steps, these federal disability claims would fail on the allegations presented. The court found that she did not allege that SSB refused to provide services, discriminated against her solely because of her disability, or acted with discriminatory intent. The Title VII claim also failed because SSB provided services to Hussey but did not employ her.

Other claims. The court held that Hussey’s Social Security Act claim was insufficient because she did not identify the provision allegedly violated or claim that the defendants caused her to lose Social Security benefits. Her claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 failed because that criminal statute does not create a private right to sue and because she did not allege that the defendants made false statements to the United States. Her Fifteenth Amendment claim failed because she did not allege that she was deprived of the right to vote.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Hussey asked to file a second amended complaint. The court denied the request because the proposed complaint added no new legal theories or facts and therefore could not cure the problems identified in the existing complaint. The court characterized the proposed amendment as futile, meaning it would still not survive dismissal.

Motion to Strike and Final Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to strike as moot. The court ordered that the motion to dismiss was granted, the motion for leave to amend was denied, and the motion to strike was denied as moot. The action was dismissed with prejudice, and the court directed that judgment be entered. Judge David S. Doty signed the order.