Zarn v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

Benjamin Zarn, an employee of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, objected to the department’s COVID-19 policy. The policy required employees to submit proof of vaccination or undergo COVID-19 testing at least weekly, and employees who refused could face discipline up to and including discharge. Zarn applied for a religious exemption, which the department denied because, according to the complaint, there was no process for requesting a religious exemption. The department required Zarn to test weekly.

Zarn asserted state-law claims in Counts II and IV of his complaint. Count II alleged religious discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable religious accommodation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Count IV alleged that the department violated Minnesota Statute § 12.39, which Zarn described as giving individuals a right to refuse medical testing and vaccination.

Failure to Respond

Zarn, who was represented by counsel, did not respond to the department’s motion to dismiss Counts II and IV. The court treated the motion as unopposed but explained that the failure to respond alone was not enough to grant it. The court therefore examined the motion under applicable law and the facts alleged in the complaint.

Sovereign Immunity and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court dismissed both state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). It held that the Eleventh Amendment’s sovereign-immunity protection barred the claims against the Minnesota Department of Human Services in federal court. The court explained that this protection applies to state-law claims against an unconsenting state or state instrumentality when the state is the real party in interest.

The court also concluded that Minnesota had not clearly waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Regarding the Minnesota Human Rights Act claim, the court relied on precedent stating that Minnesota consented to suit under that act only in Minnesota state courts, not federal court. The court therefore held that Count II was barred by sovereign immunity. The court likewise held that Count IV was barred by sovereign immunity.

Count IV and Failure to State a Claim

The court separately ruled that Count IV failed under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally valid claim for relief. The court agreed that Minnesota Statute § 12.39 gives individuals a right to refuse medical testing or vaccination, but held that the statute does not create a private cause of action. In other words, the statute does not authorize an individual to bring a civil lawsuit for its alleged violation.

The court also stated that the statute did not show a clear legislative intent to waive Minnesota’s sovereign immunity or consent to suit against the state.

Disposition

The court ordered that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts II and IV was GRANTED. It further ordered that Claims II and IV were DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judge Michael J. Davis signed the order on October 19, 2022.