Benner v. Saint Paul Public Schools, I.S.D. 625

Background

Aaron A. Benner brought an employment action against Saint Paul Public Schools, I.S.D. #625 and Lisa Grunewald. He alleged that the school district discharged him from his teaching position in retaliation for criticizing a racial-equity policy intended to prevent disproportionate suspensions of students of color.

A prior summary-judgment order by United States District Judge Susan R. Nelson held that a jury must decide Benner’s retaliatory-discharge claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. That order also declined to strike the reference to punitive damages in Benner’s Third Amended Complaint.

Motions and arguments

Benner later moved to amend the scheduling order and his complaint. The deadline for non-dispositive motions had been extended to September 6, 2018, but Benner did not file his motion to amend until June 24, 2019. He sought permission to add an express request for punitive damages against the school district based on the Whistleblower Act claim.

The school district argued that Benner had not shown the diligence and other circumstances required to modify a scheduling order after its deadline. It also argued that amendment would be futile because the Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Act prohibits punitive-damages awards against municipalities for claims within that statute’s scope.

Good cause to modify the schedule

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 requires good cause to modify a scheduling order after a deadline. The court recognized that Benner could have acted more diligently, but found good cause based on the unusual procedural history and uncertainty about whether a separate amendment motion was required under Minnesota’s punitive-damages gatekeeping statute.

The court noted that Benner’s complaints already included a general request for punitive damages, the parties had twice stipulated to amended pleadings containing the Whistleblower Act claim and that request, and the district had not specifically objected to the punitive-damages request during those amendments. The court also noted that Judge Nelson had previously ruled that no separate motion was required under the circumstances. The court did not decide whether such a motion was actually required, but held that the failure to file one by the deadline did not defeat good cause.

Whether amendment would be futile

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, courts generally allow amendments when justice requires, unless amendment would be futile. An amendment is futile if the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The court considered whether the Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Act’s prohibition on punitive damages against municipalities applied to Benner’s statutory retaliatory-discharge claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. The Whistleblower Act allows an injured employee to recover “any and all damages recoverable at law.” The Municipal Tort Claims Act generally makes municipalities liable for their torts but provides that an award for damages on such a claim may not include punitive damages.

The court concluded that the Municipal Tort Claims Act does not clearly and unambiguously include statutory Whistleblower Act claims within the term “torts.” It further concluded that the Whistleblower Act’s broad remedies provision supports the availability of punitive damages and that the Act does not separately exclude municipal employers from those damages. The court therefore held that the Municipal Tort Claims Act does not prohibit a punitive-damages award for a Whistleblower Act claim against a municipal employer.

Disposition

The court granted Benner’s motion to amend the scheduling order and complaint. Benner was ordered to promptly file his Fourth Amended Complaint. The order did not award punitive damages; it allowed Benner to pursue that request in the case.