Hebert v. Winona County
111 F. Supp. 3d 970
| D. Minnesota | 2015Background
- Duane Hebert was Winona County Administrator (Aug 2009–May 2014) and was terminated May 6, 2014 after a Board-released investigative report concluded he failed to disclose a potential conflict involving his wife’s employer related to a solar project.
- Hebert alleges procedural due process violations under both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, marital-status discrimination under the MHRA, breach of contract, and defamation.
- He claims he received no pre-termination meeting to hear charges, was placed on administrative leave, could not attend a closed Board meeting, and a promised post-termination name‑clearing hearing was cancelled and never rescheduled.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: (1) Counts I & II to the extent they rely on the Minnesota Constitution, and (2) Counts IV (breach of contract) and V (defamation) for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- The court dismissed the Minnesota‑Constitution claims (no private right of action) and dismissed the breach and defamation claims with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because those claims must proceed by writ of certiorari under Minnesota law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private cause of action exists under the Minnesota Constitution for procedural‑due‑process claims | Hebert asserted Minnesota Constitution violations and sought relief (including mandamus) | No private right of action exists under the Minnesota Constitution; mandamus in federal court cannot compel state officials | Dismissed Counts I & II to the extent they rely on the Minnesota Constitution; mandamus request denied (federal courts lack authority to issue mandamus to state officers) |
| Whether mandamus is available to remedy alleged procedural due process violations | Hebert sought a writ of mandamus to secure hearings | County argued mandamus is inappropriate because federal courts cannot compel state actors and Hebert has other remedies under his federal claims | Mandamus denied; plaintiff’s remedy can proceed under his federal constitutional claims but not by state‑targeted mandamus in federal court |
| Whether Hebert’s breach of contract and defamation claims may proceed in district court or must go by certiorari | Hebert argued his breach and defamation claims can be litigated in district court (and that MHRA permits civil actions) | Defendants argued those claims necessarily challenge the county’s termination decision and thus must be pursued by certiorari under Minnesota law | Counts IV and V dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because both implicate the county’s termination decision and are subject to certiorari review |
| Whether the MHRA authorizes district‑court adjudication of the contract/defamation claims | Hebert relied on MHRA language allowing civil actions for unfair discriminatory practices tied to marital‑status discrimination | County argued MHRA covers statutory discrimination claims only and does not convert contract or defamation claims into district‑court actions | Court rejected Hebert’s statutory reading; MHRA does not displace certiorari for the contract/defamation claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (applying plausibility standard)
- Willis v. County of Sherburne, 555 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1996) (termination of county employees must be challenged by certiorari)
- Grundtner v. Univ. of Minn., 730 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) (statements about termination reason are evaluated in light of termination decision)
- S.D. Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2003) (subject‑matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time)
- Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., 628 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 2010) (court need not accept legal conclusions on a motion to dismiss)