Plaintiffs Joseph Norgren and his son Aaron Norgren sued the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) and DHS Commissioner Jodi Harpstead in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, raising claims of Title VII discrimination and retaliation, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment retaliation and compelled speech. The district court dismissed the Norgrens’ complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Aaron Norgren’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims but affirmed the dismissal of the other claims.
Factual Overview
Joseph and Aaron Norgren, both Christians and employees of DHS, were denied religious exemptions to workplace trainings on racism and gender identity, prompting their lawsuits. The incidents leading to their complaints began with an exchange in 2018, where Joseph was questioned by his supervisor about his beliefs on the number of genders, followed by directives in 2020 to complete trainings on anti-racism and understanding gender identity, which they found objectionable based on their religious beliefs and traditional views of equality. Their requests for religious exemptions from these trainings were denied. Aaron Norgren further alleged retaliation affecting his employment opportunities within DHS following his objections to the trainings and after filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC.
Legal Analysis
Title VII Retaliation – Aaron: The court found Aaron Norgren’s allegations sufficient to plausibly support a claim of Title VII retaliation, noting his claim was bolstered by the timing between his protected conduct (filing a discrimination charge) and the adverse action (denial of a promotion).
Title VII Discrimination – Aaron: Aaron’s appeal of the dismissal of his Title VII religious discrimination claim was also reversed, with the court noting his strong employment record, the deviation from DHS’s past practice, and the timing of the adverse action as contributing to an inference of religious discrimination.
Title VII Discrimination – Joseph: Joseph Norgren’s claim of Title VII discrimination through constructive discharge was not revived on appeal. The court found that the incidents cited, including a hostile exchange and the denial of a religious exemption years later, did not plausibly constitute an intolerable work environment that would compel a reasonable person to resign.
First Amendment Retaliation and Compelled Speech: The appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the Norgrens’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and compelled speech against Commissioner Harpstead. It found insufficient allegations to support these claims, particularly the lack of direct involvement by Harpstead in the alleged retaliation and the absence of a plausible claim of compelled speech.
The court concluded by reversing the dismissal of Aaron Norgren’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against DHS and affirming the dismissal of all other claims.
Schrag on Law 