STATE OF MINNESOTA

DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

State of Minnesota by Rebecca Lucero,
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights,

Case Type: Discrimination
Court File No. ___________

Petitioner,
vs.

STIPULATION AND ORDER

City of Minneapolis Police Department,
City of Minneapolis,
Respondent.

Petitioner State of Minnesota by Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Human Rights (“Commissioner”) filed a charge of discrimination against
Respondent City of Minneapolis Police Department, City of Minneapolis alleging discrimination
in public services based on race. The Commissioner brought a petition for stipulated injunctive
relief to obtain preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 6(e) (2018)
to stop immediate and irreparable harm to the public, and in particular people of color, who are at
risk of further harm due to the discriminatory practices alleged in the charge of discrimination, and
to ensure the Commissioner’s charge can be investigated in an expeditious and efficient matter,
while the Commissioner’s charge is pending.

The Commissioner and Respondent City of

Minneapolis (collectively “the Parties”) stipulate to the following and request that the Court
approve this stipulation and order granting the proposed preliminary injunctive relief.

1

 I.
BACKGROUND
The Commissioner filed a charge of discrimination against the City of Minneapolis Police
Department, City of Minneapolis on June 2, 2020 alleging a violation of the Minnesota Human
Rights Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 363A (2018) (“MHRA”); the Minnesota Department of Human Rights
(“MDHR”) file number for the charge is 71537.
The Commissioner’s charge alleged the City of Minneapolis Police Department
discriminated in the area of public services based on race in violation of Minn. Stat. § 363A.12
(2018); in particular, the charge alleged the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, while
in custody of City of Minneapolis police officers was race-based discrimination and the
Commissioner had reason to believe that the City of Minneapolis Police Department has engaged
in a pattern and practice of race-based policing in violation of the MHRA.
The Commissioner has reason to believe that the City of Minneapolis has engaged in unfair
discriminatory practices.
The Commissioner brought a petition to obtain preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 6(e), while the Commissioner’s investigation of the charge of
discrimination is ongoing.
The Parties agree that a preliminary injunction is necessary to immediately protect the
public and facilitate MDHR’s investigation.
The Commissioner and the City of Minneapolis have reached an agreement on the terms
of a preliminary injunction and request that this Court promptly enter this Stipulation and Order;
The Parties agree to entry by the Court of findings that: (i) the requirements of the MHRA
will be carried out by the implementation of this Stipulation and Order; (ii) the Commissioner’s
investigation of the charge of discrimination will be enhanced and assisted by the process
2

 established for resolving any possible data practices and discovery disputes that may arise during
the course of the Commissioner’s investigation using the process set forth in this Stipulation and
Order and by the protection of those who are involved in the Commissioner’s investigation; (iii)
the terms of the Stipulation and Order are reasonable and related to the Commissioner’s charge of
discrimination; (iv) the terms of this Order constitute a fair and equitable resolution of the
Commissioner’s application for temporary relief pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 6(e);
and the Parties agree that many previous efforts to address long-standing problems in policing
have not achieved the hoped for reform.
Upon consent of the Commissioner and the City of Minneapolis, in consideration of the
mutual promises and recitals contained in this Stipulation and Order, including the relinquishment
of certain legal rights, the Parties agree the Court may enter an Order as follows:
II.
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 363A.28, subd. 6(e) and has jurisdiction over the Parties. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of
this action for the duration of the terms of this Stipulation and Order for purposes of entering all
orders, judgments, and decrees that may be necessary to implement the relief and enforcing
compliance with the terms provided herein.
III.
PARTIES
This Stipulation and Order applies to and is binding only upon the following Parties:
A.

The State of Minnesota by Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota

Department of Human Rights; and
B.

The City of Minneapolis.

3

 IV.
SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Parties to this Stipulation and Order acknowledge that this does not resolve or purport
to resolve the underlying charge of discrimination filed by the Commissioner against the City of
Minneapolis Police Department, City Minneapolis.
V.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OBJECTIVES
Black, Indigenous, and communities of color have suffered generational pain and trauma
as a result of systemic and institutional racism and long-standing problems in policing. This
continuous harm was once again highlighted by the in-custody death of George Floyd. The Parties
agree that many previous efforts have not resolved the historic problems in policing in this
community.
The objectives of the terms of the preliminary injunctive relief identified below, pursuant
to Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.01 and Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 6(e), are:
1.

to stop immediate and irreparable harm to the public, in particular for people of

color, who are at risk of further harm due to the discriminatory practices alleged in the charge of
discrimination, while the Commissioner’s charge is pending; and
2.

to ensure the Commissioner’s charge can be investigated in an expeditious and

efficient matter.
VI.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The City of Minneapolis is hereby ORDERED to do the following:
Immediate Implementation Changes
1.
BAN CHOKEHOLDS: Within 10 days of the Effective Date, the City will amend
Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual §§ 5-100 (Code of Conduct), 5-300 (Use of

4

 Force), and 5-311 (Use of Neck Restraints and Choke Holds) to prohibit the use of all neck
restraints or choke holds for any reason.
2.
DUTY TO REPORT: Regardless of tenure or rank, any member of the City’s
Police Department who observes another member of the City’s Police Department use any
unauthorized use of force, including any choke hold or neck restraint, in violation of this
Stipulation and Order, has an affirmative duty to immediately report the incident while still on
scene by phone or radio to their Commander or their Commander’s superiors.
3.
DUTY TO INTERVENE: Regardless of tenure or rank, any member of the City’s
Police Department who observes another member of the City’s Police Department use any
unauthorized use of force, including any choke hold or neck restraint in violation of this Stipulation
and Order, must attempt to safely intervene by verbal and physical means, and if they do not do so
shall be subject to discipline to the same severity as if they themselves engaged in the prohibited
use of force.
4.
CROWD CONTROL AUTHORIZATION: During protests and demonstrations,
use of all crowd control weapons must be authorized only by the Chief of Police, or if the Chief is
unavailable, the Chief’s designee at the rank of Deputy Chief or above. Crowd control weapons
include, but are not limited to, chemical agents, rubber bullets, flash-bangs, batons, and marking
rounds. The Police Department shall contemporaneously document the person who authorized the
use of crowd control weapons and retain such documentation for a period of not less than seven
years. Accordingly, within 10 days of the Effective Date, the City will amend Police Department
Policy and Procedure Manual § 5-313 to reflect that chemical agents, regardless of canister size,
may be used during crowd control situations if authorized only by the Chief of Police, or if the
Chief is unavailable, the Chief’s designee at the rank of Deputy Chief or above. Any other
provisions of the Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual that identify the authorized use
of other crowd control weapons must also be amended within 10 days of the Effective Date to
reflect that use of such weapons must be authorized only by the Chief of Police.
5.
TIMELY DISCIPLINE DECISIONS: For all recommendations that are pending
as of the Effective Date of this Stipulation and Order, the Police Chief must issue a decision on
any recommendation from the City’s Office of Police Conduct Review (OPCR) within 45 calendar
days of the Effective Date. For all recommendations of merit provided by the OPCR after the
Effective Date of this Stipulation and Order, and for the duration of this Stipulation and Order, the
Police Chief must issue a written memorandum explaining the basis their decision, including the
relevant facts, policies and law supporting the decision, within 30 calendar days. If and when
permitted by Minn. Stat. § 13.43, the decision and written memorandum will be immediately made
available to the public via the City’s website and must also be available for physical inspection.
Within 90 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Stipulation and Order, the City shall amend
any city ordinances to conform to the requirements of this paragraph. The City shall also amend
any city ordinances to fashion an appropriate remedy for the person filing the complaint if a
determination on the OPCR’s recommendation of merit is not made within the 30 calendar day
time period.

5

 6.
BODY WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE REVIEW: Civilian body worn camera
footage analysts and investigators in the OPCR will have the authority to proactively and
strategically audit body worn camera (BWC) footage and file or amend complaints on behalf of
the Minneapolis Civil Rights Department. Within 90 calendar days of the Effective Date, the City
of Minneapolis will submit to the Department of Human Rights a plan for detailing how it intends
to strategically utilize this audit function to identify discriminatory practices in policing, including
officer misconduct.
Building Toward Systemic Change
7.
On or before July 30, 2020, the City Attorney shall prepare a report listing the State
of Minnesota Laws that impede public transparency of police data and/or prevent the Mayor and
Chief of Police and/or impede civilian oversight from disciplining and terminating police officers
who do not adhere to Minneapolis Police Department policies and standards.
8.
For the purpose of implementing the Stipulation and Order, which is related to the
on-going investigation of the MDHR Commissioner’s charge, the City will cooperate with MDHR,
its investigators, any consultative experts it retains, and its attorneys and agents to provide access
to City staff, employees, facilities, documents, and data. The investigation will comply with state
laws regarding access to data including the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, ch. 13, and
the Minnesota Human Rights Act, ch. 363A. Upon the City’s request, and in order to expedite
MDHR’s access to relevant evidence, MDHR shall provide the City with subpoenas prior to
requesting documents or making any investigative inquiries or requests related to its investigation
of the Commissioner’s Charge or any alleged violations of this Stipulation and Order.
9.
Pursuant to this Stipulation and Order, if the City objects to providing MDHR with
access to documents, data, or information, based on the attorney-client privilege or the attorney
work product doctrine, the City will inform MDHR within 30 calendar days of the request that it
is withholding documents or data on this basis and will contemporaneously provide MDHR with
an itemized privilege log describing the specific documents, data, or information withheld
consistent with Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(f) and 34.03(c)(3).
10.
Pursuant to this Order, if the City objects to providing documents, data, evidence
or any other requested information on a basis other than a recognized legal privilege, the City shall
provide a detailed list of its objections to specific documents or evidence to MDHR within 20
calendar days of receipt of the request. MDHR and the City agree to meet and confer regarding
the disputed request. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, the City shall move this Court
for a protective order.
11.
The City shall prohibit all forms of retaliation, intimidation, coercion, or adverse
action against any person, including any City employee, who reports misconduct or cooperates
with MDHR’s Commissioner’s charge investigation. Any violation of this provision shall be
considered a material breach of the Order and may result in further enforcement action by MDHR.

6

 12.
All forms of retaliation, interference, intimidation, and coercion against a City
employee or any member of the public who reports misconduct or cooperates with MDHR’s
Commissioner’s charge investigation, are strictly prohibited. This prohibited conduct includes
anyone employed by the City’s Police Department, or a representative of such employee, who
intentionally aids, abets, incites, compels, or coerces a person to engage in any of the practices
forbidden by this Stipulation and Order.
13.
The City shall notify all employees that it is unlawful to intentionally obstruct or
prevent any person from complying with the MHRA, MDHR’s Commissioner’s Charge
investigation, or any order issued thereunder, or to resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with the
Commissioner or any of the Commissioner’s employees or representatives in the performance of
their duties.
14.
The Parties agree to defend the provisions of the Stipulation and Order in the event
any provision of the Stipulation and Order is challenged in any federal, state, or county court and
any administrative challenges filed with federal or state agencies, unless contrary to law.
VII.
COSTS AND FEES
Fees and Costs. The Parties agree that, with the exception of any costs attributable to a
special master if appointed by the court, the Parties are not entitled to and shall not seek from any
court any other monetary relief or compensation, including damages or other fees, costs, expenses,
or disbursements in connection with the Commissioner’s petition brought pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 363A.28, subd. 6(e); and that, except to the extent stated in this agreement, the Parties are
responsible for their own fees, costs, and expenses.
VIII.
ENFORCEMENT AND RESERVATION OF REMEDIES
A.

The Parties to this Stipulation and Order may request relief from this Court if issues

arise concerning the interpretation of this Stipulation and Order that cannot be resolved through
the process described in paragraph VIII.B below. This Court specifically retains continuing
jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof and the parties hereto for the purposes of interpreting,
enforcing, or modifying the terms of this Stipulation and Order; for the purposes of the process

7

 established in this Stipulation and Order to resolve any discovery and/or data practices disputes
during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation; and/or for the purposes of granting any
other relief not inconsistent with the terms of this Stipulation and Order, until this Order is
terminated. The Commissioner or the City of Minneapolis may apply to this Court for any orders
or other relief necessary to construe or effectuate this Stipulation and Order or seek informal
conferences for direction as may be appropriate. The Parties shall meet and confer regarding any
dispute prior to seeking relief from the Court.
B.

If MDHR believes that the City of Minneapolis has not complied with the

requirements of this Stipulation and Order, the Commissioner shall notify the City of Minneapolis
of its noncompliance. The City of Minneapolis shall have 15 days after receipt of the notice to
respond. If the Commissioner determines the City of Minneapolis has not complied with this
Stipulation and Order, the Commissioner shall bring the noncompliance to this Court’s attention
by filing an appropriate motion.
C.

If the City of Minneapolis does not comply with the requirements of this Stipulation

and Order, the Court may enforce this Stipulation and Order by any one or any combination of the
remedies available under the MHRA, including civil penalties, injunctive relief, or other relief
available through the contempt powers granted to the Court.
D.

The Commissioner specifically reserves her right and MDHR’s right to seek

recovery of litigation costs and expenses arising from any violation of this Stipulation and Order
that require the Commissioner to file a motion with this Court for enforcement of this Stipulation
and Order.
E.

The Commissioner specifically reserves her right and MDHR’s right to take actions

to address violations that are not the subject of the Commissioner’s petition brought pursuant to

8

 Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 6(e), and, unless otherwise provided herein, any violations arising
after the effective date.
IX.
GENERAL TERMS
A.

Government Data. The Parties acknowledge that the release of information

concerning this matter from MDHR’s file is governed by the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.
Stat. ch. 363A; the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13; and the Official
Records Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 15.17, et seq.
B.

Effective Date. This Stipulation and Order is effective upon the date it is entered

by the Court. The City of Minneapolis agrees to continue to initiate and implement all activities
necessary to comply with the provisions of this Stipulation and Order pending entry by the Court.
X.
TERMINATION
This Stipulation and Order shall remain in effect pending final determination of the
proceedings on the Commissioner’s charge of discrimination filed against the City of Minneapolis,
MDHR File No. 71537, and this stipulation provides the consent required under Minn. Stat. §
363A.28, subd. 6(e) for the temporary restraining order to extend beyond ten days. The Court
shall retain jurisdiction for the duration of this Stipulation and Order to enforce the terms of the
Order and to maintain the discovery and investigative request dispute process provided in this
Stipulation and Order. This Court’s jurisdiction shall terminate upon notice from the Parties.

THE PARTIES ENTER INTO AND APPROVE THIS STIPULATION AND ORDER AND
SUBMIT IT TO THE COURT SO THAT IT MAY BE APPROVED AND ENTERED. THE
PARTIES HAVE CAUSED THIS STIPULATION AND ORDER TO BE SIGNED ON THE
DATES OPPOSITE THEIR SIGNATURES.

9

 For the Minnesota Department of Human Rights
Date: June __, 2020
REBECCA LUCERO
Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Human Rights

For the City of Minneapolis
Date: June __, 2020

JACOB FREY
Mayor
City of Minneapolis

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:_____________

Honorable Judge of the Hennepin County
District Court

10