State by Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View
| Decision Date | 13 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. C3-92-1780,C3-92-1780 |
| Citation | 498 N.W.2d 503 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, by David BEAULIEU, Commissioner, Department of Human Rights, Respondent, v. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, Minnesota, et al., Relators. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The common law doctrine of official immunity does not bar a claim of racial discrimination brought against police officers under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Mary A. Rice, David J. Hoekstra, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, St. Paul, for relators.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Stephen L. Smith, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Considered and decided by LANSING, P.J., and SCHUMACHER and HARTEN, JJ.
This is an administrative action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act in which the City of Mounds View asserts official immunity as a bar to a discrimination claim against the city and two of its police officers.
In a complaint filed with the Department of Human Rights, Lateesa Agunbiade alleged that Mounds View police officers' investigatory stop of her car was an unfair discriminatory act against her and her fourteen-year-old son. The stop was in connection with a police investigation of a robbery of the Spring Lake Park VFW Post.
Mounds View police officers Jack Chambers and Larry Siluk received a police dispatch immediately after the robbery. The dispatch described the suspect as a black male, 5' 7"' to 5' 10"' tall, with short hair, and wearing dark clothing. The officers responded to the communication by driving northwest on Highway 10 toward the VFW post.
At the intersection of Highway 10 and County Road I, Chambers and Siluk saw a gray vehicle with two black occupants. The passenger was a male with short hair and wearing dark clothing. The officers turned to follow the vehicle and radioed that they were pursuing a possible suspect.
Chambers and Siluk stopped the car at the intersection of Highway 694 and Snelling Avenue. The stop was conducted consistent with felony-stop procedures which includes the officers drawing their guns and ordering the occupants out of the car. The officers detained the Agunbiades for approximately fifteen minutes before concluding that they had no connection with the robbery.
The Human Rights Department found probable cause to credit the allegations of racial discrimination. The department issued a charge against the City of Mounds View and its two officers alleging racial discrimination in violation of Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 4(1) (1990) by denying the Agunbiades full utilization or benefit from a public service.
Prior to the administrative hearing, the city filed a prehearing brief asserting that this action was barred by the doctrines of qualified and official immunity, and that the officer's conduct in executing the investigatory stop was constitutionally valid. Treating the immunity arguments raised as a motion for summary judgment, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that an action brought against police officers under the Minnesota Human Rights Act is not barred by qualified or official immunity.
Does the doctrine of official immunity bar a claim of racial discrimination brought against police officers under the Minnesota Human Rights Act?
The immunity defense in this appeal is limited to the common law doctrine of official immunity. The city did not appeal the ALJ's ruling on the inapplicability of qualified immunity. See Elwood v. County of Rice, 423 N.W.2d 671, 677 (Minn.1988) (). Neither has the city asserted discretionary function immunity under Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 (1990).
In its claim of official immunity, the city has not distinguished its liability from the liability of the officers. See Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38, 42-43 (Minn.1992) (). Because this composite treatment does not affect our analysis, we do not separate the employees from the governmental entity for our review.
Official immunity is a common law doctrine that protects a public official's exercise of judgment or discretion by eliminating personal liability for damages except when the action constitutes a willful or malicious wrong. Elwood, 423 N.W.2d at 677; Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175, 247 N.W.2d 907, 912 (1976). Generally, police officers are classified as discretionary officers entitled to official immunity. Johnson v. Morris, 453 N.W.2d 31, 42 (Minn.1990); Elwood, 423 N.W.2d at 678.
Minnesota courts have freely applied official immunity to police officers acting in their discretionary capacity in a variety of tort actions. See, e.g., Pletan, 494 N.W.2d at 41 (wrongful death action); Elwood, 423 N.W.2d at 679 (); Reuter v. City of New Hope, 449 N.W.2d 745, 751 (Minn.App.1990) (), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 1990).
Whether common law official immunity applies to actions other than torts has apparently not been decided in Minnesota; neither the city nor the state could find a case applying official immunity to a statutory cause of action. Our issue, however, is narrower. We need not decide whether official immunity applies generally to statutory causes of action, but only whether the doctrine applies to the Human Rights Act, a comprehensive legislative act which, although allowing for a separate civil action, is essentially an administrative remedy.
In the two reported cases dealing with Human Rights Act claims against peace officers, official immunity was neither asserted nor addressed. See City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 89, 239 N.W.2d 197, 203 (1976) (); Rosenbloom v. Flygare, 487 N.W.2d 546 (Minn.App.1992) (), pet. for rev. granted (Minn. Oct. 20, 1992). In fact, official immunity has never been invoked within the context of a Minnesota Human Rights Act claim, and we are, therefore, compelled to address the application of official immunity in this case without the benefit of direct precedent.
The test for determining whether common law doctrines apply to legislative enactments is whether the doctrine is consistent or inconsistent with the legislative intent in enacting the statute. Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 2170-71, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991) (). When a statute contains no express delimitation, courts should also consider the common law adjudicatory context providing background to the legislative act. Astoria, --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 2169.
The Minnesota Human Rights Act admits of no immunities specifically, and Minn.Stat. § 363.02 (1990), which establishes exemptions to the Act, does not incorporate an exemption for police officers or any public official acting in a discretionary capacity.
The state advances three provisions in the Human Rights Act as inconsistent with an application of official immunity. These include Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 4 (1990) which prohibits discrimination with respect to any public service; 1 Minn.Stat. § 363.06, subd. 4(1)(d) (1990) which requires that priority be given by the Commissioner to claims when the respondent is a government entity; and Minn.Stat. § 363.071, subd. 2 (1990) which limits the personal liability for punitive damages of members of a political subdivision governing body.
The first two provisions express an intention that the Act apply to government entities but neither provision is directly inconsistent with extending official immunity to a government employee. Read in conjunction with Minn.Stat. § 363.06, subd. 1 (1990) requiring that the charge must state the name of the person alleged to have committed the discriminatory act, an implication arises that government officials and employees are subject to the Act. The provisions could still be read, consistent with official immunity, to apply to nondiscretionary acts of government employees.
The final provision advanced, the limitation of certain public officials' personal liability for punitive damages, does demonstrate, if not inconsistency, a legislative intent to define immunity within the provisions of the Act. Although decisions by members of a governing body of a political subdivision would usually be protected by discretionary function or discretionary act immunity, they could be involved in ministerial acts that would not be protected by official immunity. In that context applying the official immunity doctrine would be inconsistent with section 363.071, subd. 2.
More significantly, this approach of defining immunity within the Act demonstrates an intent to legislate immunity on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming a general inclusion of official immunity in all statutes. A review of Minnesota statutory law shows that often when the Legislature intends for public employees to have immunity for their official conduct, it has expressly provided the scope and definition of the immunity. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 626.556, subd. 4(b) (1992) (); Minn.Stat. § 125.09, subd. 5 (1992) (); Minn.Stat. § 299C.64 (1992) (); Minn.Stat. § 60G.08 (1992) (). The specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engele v. Independent School Dist. No. 91
...on official immunity, cannot survive the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in State of Minnesota, by Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View, 498 N.W.2d 503 (Minn.Ct.App.1993), pet. for rev. granted, No. C3-92-1780 (Minn. June 9, 1993). In Beaulieu, the court held that the common law doctr......
-
State by Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View
...the ALJ's conclusion that official immunity did not apply to a claim brought under the Human Rights Act. State by Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View, 498 N.W.2d 503. This appeal At issue is whether the common law doctrine of official immunity applies to an action under the Minnesota Human Righ......
-
Villarreal v. Independent School Dist. No. 659, Northfield
...attaches. Freier v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 197, 356 N.W.2d 724, 729 (Minn.App.1984). Villarreal, relying on State v. City of Mounds View, 498 N.W.2d 503 (Minn.App.1993), pet. for rev. granted (Minn. June 9, 1993), asserts that judicial immunity is not available as a defense in a proceed......