McDonald v. City of Saint Paul
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9484
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- McDonald, former City director of Equal Employment Opportunity programs, applied in 2008 for the newly created department director role.
- A city selection committee certified finalists and the mayor ultimately chose Frias; McDonald was not appointed.
- There was a multi-step process with community forums and city council involvement, with discretion retained by the mayor and council.
- McDonald filed suit in 2009 raising § 1983, § 1985, Title VII, MHRA, Title IX, state constitutional due process, and IIED claims.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; McDonald appeals.
- Key dispute centered on whether McDonald had a protected property interest and whether actions were retaliatory or discriminatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did McDonald have a protectable due process property interest? | McDonald had legitimate entitlement to the director position once finalists were certified. | No entitlement; mayor could appoint from finalists with council approval; no fixed right created by resolution or ordinances. | No protected property interest; due process claims fail. |
| Was there unlawful equal protection due to protected activity? | McDonald treated differently because of 2003 whistleblower action and related conduct of committee members. | No evidence of differential treatment or intentional discrimination; similarly situated candidates not shown. | Equal protection claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Did McDonald establish a conspiracy under § 1985(3)? | Conspiracy to deprive him of employment because of protected activity. | Whistleblower status not a class-based protected characteristic; no class-based animus shown. | Conspiracy claim affirmed as not proven; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. |
| Are Title VII and MHRA reprisal claims viable with the record? | Not being appointed was retaliatory for protected activity and thus actionable. | No causal link shown; lapse of time and lack of proximate evidence undermine causation. | No prima facie retaliation; summary judgment for defendants upheld. |
| Does Title IX exposure apply to this employment decision? | Discrimination related to participation in a federally funded program. | No evidence of sex-based discrimination or connection to education program/activity receiving federal funds. | Title IX claim failed; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests defined by independent sources, not the Constitution)
- Brown v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (due process requires protected life, liberty or property interest)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Tyler v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trustees, 628 F.3d 980 (8th Cir. 2011) (causal nexus in retaliation requires more than temporal proximity)
- Schueller v. Goddard, 631 F.3d 462 (8th Cir. 2011) (protected entitlement discussions under related due-process rulings)