Forslund v. State

• Decision Date: 05 September 2017
• Docket Number: A17-0033
• Parties: Tiffini Flynn Forslund, et al., Appellants, v. State of Minnesota, et al., Respondents, St. Paul Public Schools, et al., Defendants.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Tiffini Flynn Forslund, et al., Appellants, v. State of Minnesota, et al., Respondents,St. Paul Public Schools, et al., Defendants.

A17-0033

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

September 5, 2017

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

Affirmed

Smith Tracy M., Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. 62-CV-16-2161

James R. Swanson (pro hac vice), Jesse C. Stewart (pro hac vice), Fishman Haygood, L.L.P, New Orleans, Louisiana; and Lewis A. Remele, Jr., Kate L. Homolka, Bassford Remele, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Nekima Levy-Pounds, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellants)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Alethea M. Huyser, Assistant Solicitor General, Andrew Tweeten, Assistant Attorney General, Jason Marisam, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondents)

John Cairns, John Cairns Law, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amici curiae National Council on Teacher Quality and TNTP, Inc.)

Nathan R. Sellers, Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thompson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Ed Allies)

Mahesha P. Subbaraman, Subbaraman PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Freedom Foundation of Minnesota) Samuel J. Lieberman, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C. (for amici curiae American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO and National Education Association)

Timothy J. Louris, Miller O'Brien Jensen, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amici curiae Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en Lucha, TakeAction Minnesota, and ISAIAH)

Jess Anna Glover, Christina L. Ogata, Cedrick R. Frazier, Education Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Roger Aronson, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amici curiae Education Minnesota and Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and Toussaint, Judge.^*

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SMITH, TRACY M., Judge

Under Minnesota law, tenured teachers in public schools are entitled to certain procedural protections before they may be discharged. See Minn. Stat. §§ 122A.40, .41 (2016) (the teacher-tenure statutes). Appellants Tiffini Flynn Forslund, Justina Person, Bonnie Dominguez, and Roxanne Draughn argue that the teacher-tenure statutes unconstitutionally burden their children's right to an adequate education by protecting the jobs of ineffective teachers in violation of the Education Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. The district court dismissed appellants' claims under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02.

Appellants argue on appeal that the district court erred in concluding that (1) appellants do not have standing; (2) appellants' claims are nonjusticiable under thepolitical-question doctrine; (3) appellants failed to state a claim under the Education Clause; and (4) appellants failed to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Appellants also argue that the district court erred because it did not allow them to amend their complaint before dismissing their claims. Because we conclude that appellants' Education Clause claim and Equal Protection Clause claim raise nonjusticiable political questions under a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, and because appellants failed to properly file a motion for leave to amend their complaint, we affirm. We do not address the remainder of appellants' arguments.

FACTS

Minnesota's teacher-tenure statutes provide public-school teachers who have successfully completed a three-year probationary period with procedural protections when a school district seeks to terminate their employment. Before termination, the school board must provide the tenured teacher with notice, stating the grounds for the proposed termination. Minn. Stat. §§ 122A.40, subd. 7(a), .41, subd. 7. The school board may terminate a teacher's employment for a number of reasons, including "inefficiency in teaching." Minn. Stat. §§ 122A.40, subd. 9, .41, subd. 6. After receiving notice of the proposed termination, tenured teachers have a right to a hearing before the school board or an arbitrator. Minn. Stat. §§ 122A.40, subd. 7(a), .41, subd. 7. At this hearing, the teacher may be represented by counsel, examine witnesses, and present arguments. Minn. Stat. §§ 122A.40, subd. 14, .41, subd. 8. If the school board decides to terminate the teacher's employment, it must issue a written decision explaining the grounds on which it based its decision. Minn. Stat. §§ 122A.40, subd. 16, .41, subd. 10.

Appellants, the parents of children enrolled in Minnesota schools, allege that these "time-consuming and expensive hurdles" make it "all but impossible" to dismiss ineffective teachers. In particular, appellants assert that the teacher-tenure statutes "(1) prematurely confer near permanent employment on Minnesota teachers [and] (2) effectively prevent the removal of chronically ineffective teachers from their classrooms and, instead, result in the shuffling of ineffective teachers from higher-performing schools to already lower-performing schools."

Appellants seek a judgment declaring that the teacher-tenure statutes violate the Minnesota Constitution and a permanent injunction enjoining the enforcement of the statutes. For purposes of this appeal,¹ appellants argue that the teacher-tenure statutes violate the Minnesota Constitution in two ways. First, appellants argue that the teacher-tenure statutes violate the Education Clause because students are deprived of a "uniform and thorough education" when they are taught by ineffective teachers. Second, appellants argue that the teacher-tenure statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause by creating an "arbitrary distinction between schools that provide their students with the constitutionally required uniform and thorough education, and schools in which students are more likely to be taught by ineffective teachers."

Respondents moved to dismiss appellants' claims under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02. The district court granted respondents' motion, concluding that (1) appellants lack standing, (2) appellants' claims present nonjusticiable political questions, and(3) appellants failed to state claims under the Education Clause or the Equal Protection Clause.

This appeal follows.

DECISION

I. Appellants' claims present nonjusticiable political questions.

Appellants argue that the district court erred in concluding that their claims present nonjusticiable political questions. In particular, appellants argue that our recent decision in Cruz-Guzman v. State, 892 N.W.2d 533 (Minn. App. 2017), review granted (Minn. Apr. 26, 2017), is distinguishable and that the Minnesota Supreme Court created a standard to evaluate whether a government action interferes with the right to an adequate education in Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1993). Justiciability is a question of law that we review de novo. See McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 808 N.W.2d 331, 337 (Minn. 2011).

Appellants' claims are based on the Education Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. The Education Clause of the Minnesota Constitution states, "The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools." Minn. Const. art. XIII, § 1. The Equal Protection Clause of the Minnesota Constitution states, "No member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers." Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Equal Protection Clause "mandate[s] that all similarly situated individuals shall be treated alike." Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n, 615 N.W.2d 66, 74 (Minn. 2000). A statute may violatethe Equal Protection Clause if it involves a suspect classification or impermissibly limits a fundamental right. Granville v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., Special Dist. No. 1, 668 N.W.2d 227, 230 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). Education is a fundamental right created by the Education Clause. Skeen, 505 N.W.2d at 313.

Courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims arising out of political questions that are best resolved by the other branches of government. See McConaughy v. Sec'y of State, 106 Minn. 392, 415, 119 N.W. 408, 417 (1909). As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court, a political question involves (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a particular political department, (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it, (3) the impossibility of deciding the question without making an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion, (4) the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing a lack of the respect due to other branches of government, (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made, or (6) the potential for confusion from multiple conflicting decisions by various departments on one question. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S. Ct. 691, 710 (1962). Constitutional questions are not immune from the political-question doctrine. See id. (applying the political-question doctrine to an issue concerning the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution); Cruz-Guzman, 892 N.W.2d at 535, 538-40 (applying the political-question doctrine to an issue concerning the Education Clause and Equal Protection Clause).

Recently, and after the district court's decision in this case, we held in Cruz-Guzman that claims based on a purported right to an education of a certain quality under theEducation Clause present nonjusticiable political questions. 892 N.W.2d at 534. The plaintiffs in Cruz-Guzman alleged that Minnesota public schools are racially and socioeconomically segregated and that this segregation results in achievement gaps, in violation of their...