Mungai v. University of Minnesota

Background

Matthew Mungai, who is described in the opinion as a Black man of Kenyan origin, attended the University of Minnesota from approximately 2019 through 2022. He alleged numerous incidents involving racial insults, threats, offensive gestures, physical violence, offensive online material, inappropriate comments, and a lewd text from a University dining staff member. He also alleged that he reported incidents to University personnel but that the University took no action. According to the opinion, Mungai alleged that he became fearful and socially isolated, was diagnosed with a mental illness, experienced falling grades, and lost an employment opportunity.

Mungai’s amended complaint asserted eight causes of action: Title VI race discrimination; claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Minnesota Human Rights Act claims; negligence; a Fourteenth Amendment claim; a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for retaliation; and Title IX sex discrimination. He sought $15,000,000 in damages. He also filed motions seeking permission to file additional amended complaints and to add individual defendants.

Reasons for the ruling

The University moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. The court said that Mungai’s allegations of serious hostility were not enough because he generally said that he reported incidents to University staff without identifying what he reported, whom he told, that person’s authority, when the reports were made, or how the University responded. The court concluded that these allegations did not adequately show the University’s knowledge of the alleged harassment or deliberate indifference to it.

For the Title VI claim, the court held that Mungai did not sufficiently plead that the University had the required knowledge of racial harassment and deliberately failed to respond. The court also rejected the Title IX claim because the allegations did not show harassment that was sufficiently severe, widespread, and objectively offensive to deny access to educational opportunities, or that the University acted with deliberate indifference to reports of harassment.

For the § 1983 claims, the court held that the University, as a state entity or arm of the state, is not a “person” who can be sued for damages under § 1983. The court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim because there is no direct cause of action under that amendment; it also stated that the claim would fail under § 1983 for the same reason. The court further held that the University was protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity—which generally prevents federal lawsuits against states and their agencies without consent or congressional authorization—from the Minnesota Human Rights Act, negligence, and § 1981 retaliation claims addressed in its discussion.

Proposed amendments

The court denied Mungai’s motions to amend because the proposed complaints did not cure the pleading and legal problems. The court concluded that the proposed Title VI, § 1983, and Title IX claims remained legally insufficient, and that proposed state-law claims against the University remained barred by immunity. It also held that the proposed claims against University personnel were futile: state-law claims were barred by immunity, Title VI and Title IX did not authorize the proposed claims against individual defendants, and the proposed § 1983 damages claims against officials in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank’s order denied as moot Mungai’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the University’s earlier dismissal motion; granted the University’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint; dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice; and denied Mungai’s motions to amend. The opinion’s count discussion identifies Minnesota Human Rights Act claims in Counts III and V, but its specific immunity conclusion refers to Counts III and VI; the final order nevertheless dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice.