Hussein v. Department of Employment & Economic Development

Background

Gamada A. Hussein sued the Department of Employment & Economic Development (DEED), Steve Grove, identified as DEED’s commissioner, and John Does. The complaint asserted four claims: discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Fourteenth Amendment; violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; defamation; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Hussein alleged that DEED denied him unemployment benefits to help the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, police, sheriffs, state troopers, and others commit wrongful acts against him, including mind control, torture, discrimination, and assault. DEED and Grove moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

The opinion also states that Hussein had been placed on the District of Minnesota’s restricted-filer list in an earlier related proceeding and therefore could not respond to the motion without court permission. The court did not authorize his proposed response, which it found did not substantively address the motion, and decided the motion using the complaint and defendants’ briefing.

Eleventh Amendment immunity

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment generally bars federal suits against a state, its agencies, and state officials sued in their official capacities for damages, unless immunity has been waived or Congress has removed it. The court determined that DEED, as a state agency, was entitled to that immunity.

The court concluded that Hussein’s Title VII claim was not barred because Congress had removed states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for Title VII claims. The court also concluded that official-capacity claims against Grove were not barred to the extent Hussein sought prospective injunctive relief—relief requiring future action—because the Eleventh Amendment does not bar that type of claim against a state official.

The court therefore dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction Hussein’s claims against DEED under Sections 1981 and 1983 and for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It also dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction Grove’s official-capacity claims under those provisions and for those torts to the extent they sought damages. The court dismissed with prejudice Grove’s official-capacity claims to the extent they sought prospective injunctive relief.

Failure to state a claim

The court dismissed the remaining claims under Rule 12(b)(6). It found that Hussein had not alleged facts connecting Grove personally, the denial of unemployment benefits, and the conduct of third-party law-enforcement actors. It also found that Hussein had made only conclusory assertions, without supporting facts, that the benefits denial was related to his race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.

The court dismissed with prejudice Hussein’s Title VII claim against DEED and Grove in both official and individual capacities. It also dismissed with prejudice the remainder of Hussein’s individual-capacity claims against Grove. Because the court found that Hussein had not plausibly pleaded a constitutional or statutory violation, it did not decide whether Grove was entitled to qualified immunity.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. It entered the specified dismissals without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and with prejudice for the claims and forms of relief identified in the order, and directed that judgment be entered. The opinion does not expressly state a separate disposition for claims against the John Does.