Judge needs time to decide status of Molly Dennis' lawsuit against city
Apr. 30—ST. PAUL — A federal court judge says he needs time to determine whether
a Rochester City Council member's discrimination lawsuit against the city
can move forward.
While attorneys for the city argue that several of council member Molly Dennis' claims lack merit due to her status as an elected official rather than an employee, U.S. Federal Court Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko questioned whether that argument covered Americans With Disability Act claims.
On Tuesday afternoon, the judge reviewed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Dennis, which claims
the council member's March 6, 2023, censur
e, as well as following actions, violated several state and federal protections against discrimination based on her Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder diagnosis.
Micko said Dennis' claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act appear to be contrary to employee definitions in the law, but the ADA doesn't provide clear-cut guidance.
Erin Emory, an attorney from the Minneapolis-based Greene Espel law firm, which is representing the city, Mayor Kim Norton and council member Patrick Keane in the lawsuit, agreed that the language could be considered vague, but past rulings have determined elected officials are separate from employees.
Micko questioned whether elected officials gave up human rights protections under that interpretation, but Emory said they would still be able to file a complaint regarding discrimination in public services.
Dennis, who is representing herself, said she believes the ADA protections apply to elected officials.
"All people should be protected, regardless of how they are serving the community," she said, adding she believes restrictions required by the censure reduced her to an employee-like status.
"I have not been able to do my job," she said, pointing to restrictions on how she was able to communicate with city staff.
Emory said such restrictions are outlined in the City Council's rules for all elected officials, but Dennis told Micko she believes the actions went beyond what is expected of others.
"They used legitimate ... symptoms of my disability to justify the censure," she said.
Emory argued against that claim, pointing out that the actions cited in the censure — intimidating behavior, unwillingness to respect personal boundaries and threats — are not symptoms of ADHD. She said Dennis has cited difficulty focusing, short attention span and struggles with linear thinking as symptoms of ADHD.
"There is no overlap between her disability ... and the behavior leading to the censure," Emory said.
Dennis disagreed, saying her communication style is affected by her disability and directly connected to the council action and following restrictions, which limited interaction with city staff.
"You can't reprimand someone because you are annoyed," Dennis said, stating she believes the censure was instigated by City Administrator Alison Zelms and City Attorney Michael Spindler-Krage for questions she raised about city policies and procedures.
"The information I have brought to the court is just the tip of the iceberg of the information I have," she said, appearing to reference her response to the motion to dismiss, which was
sealed by Micko due to it potentially containing non-public data
.
While Dennis said she believes all information should be unsealed, Micko said he expects her to work with Emory to present a cooperative motion on what should be made public.
Dennis also asked to submit a 17-page argument prepared the night before, but Micko said he had enough information with the earlier filed documents and the arguments made Tuesday.
"The matter has been well presented by both sides," he said following the hearing that extended slightly beyond an hour.
Micko has the option of letting the full nine-county lawsuit move forward or ruling that some of all of the counts be dismissed.
No date for a trial has been set.
