Jackson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

Deidre Sherell Jackson, representing herself, sued the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), alleging race discrimination, color discrimination, retaliation for complaining about discrimination, and a violation of procedural due process. The alleged employment actions included a February 2019 written reprimand related to use of a state-issued cell phone, an investigation for insubordination, a suspension or deduction from vacation leave, denial of a promotion, denial of telework requests, and interference with her effort to discipline a subordinate employee.

Jackson filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on February 13, 2020, according to the charge considered by the court. She then filed this lawsuit. DHS moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, seeking dismissal of claims based on events before April 19, 2019, all color-discrimination claims, and any claims against the state of Minnesota itself.

Timeliness of claims

The court held that Title VII claims based on the February 2019 written reprimand were untimely. Title VII generally required Jackson to file an EEOC or state-agency charge within 300 days of the challenged employment action. The court treated the reprimand as a final, discrete employment action that occurred in February 2019, outside that period. The later internal grievance proceedings did not restart the filing period, and describing the reprimand as part of a continuing pattern did not change the result.

The court dismissed with prejudice the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims arising from the February 2019 reprimand. “With prejudice” means those claims cannot be refiled in the same form.

The court declined to dismiss other claims as untimely. The complaint did not clearly establish when the challenged action involving the April 2019 Letter of Expectation and later insubordination investigation occurred. The court also noted that the identified events involving the suspension, promotion, subordinate discipline, and a specific telework denial occurred after April 19, 2019. The court did not decide whether Jackson would ultimately prevail on those claims.

Color-discrimination claims

Jackson’s EEOC charge checked boxes for race discrimination and retaliation but not color discrimination. Its narrative referred to discrimination based on race or being Black and retaliation for complaining about discrimination, but it did not allege discrimination based on skin pigmentation, complexion, hue, shade, or tone. The court held that Jackson therefore had not exhausted her administrative remedies for a color-discrimination claim. Exhaustion means completing the required administrative process before bringing the claim in federal court.

The court also held that Jackson’s complaint did not plausibly allege that any treatment was caused by the particular hue of her skin. The allegations that she was an African American or Black woman and was treated less favorably than a Native American male supervisor could support a race-discrimination claim, but they did not support a distinct color-discrimination claim.

The court dismissed the color-discrimination claims without prejudice. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar a later claim if it could otherwise be pursued. The court explained that discovery on the remaining claims might reveal information relevant to a color-discrimination claim, if such a claim was timely.

Claims against Minnesota

DHS argued that any claims against the state of Minnesota should be dismissed because the state was not a proper defendant and Jackson had not exhausted claims against it as a separate entity. The court found that the operative complaint’s caption and parties section named only DHS. Jackson also clarified in her briefing that she was suing the Department of Human Services. The court therefore concluded that Jackson had not asserted claims against Minnesota as a separate defendant and denied this part of DHS’s motion as moot.

Order and classification

The court granted DHS’s motion in part and denied it in part. It granted the motion as to the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims arising from the February 2019 written reprimand and dismissed those claims with prejudice. It granted the motion as to the Title VII color-discrimination claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. It denied as moot the request to dismiss claims against the state of Minnesota, and it denied the motion in all other respects.

This is a procedural order because the court ruled on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), addressing pleading sufficiency, timeliness apparent from the complaint, and administrative exhaustion rather than finally deciding the underlying discrimination, retaliation, or due-process claims.