In 2022, Minneapolis Public Schools settled a three-week teacher strike with a key contract provision aimed at protecting teachers of color in the event of layoffs.
But that provision has never gone into effect, as the district has not laid off any teachers in the past four years, despite extensive budget cuts. And it may never take effect if the federal government has its way.
A federal judge heard arguments Wednesday morning in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging the contract between the teachers union and the school district discriminates on the basis of race, color, sex and national origin. The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit in December. Wednesday’s hearing focused on Minneapolis Public Schools’ motion to dismiss the case.
Patrick Schiltz, the chief judge for the U.S. District of Minnesota, repeatedly used the word “tricky” to describe the case. He pressed Timothy Sullivan, an attorney for Minneapolis Public Schools, to explain the relevant contract language.
Typically, teachers receive layoffs and involuntary reassignments based on seniority. But this rule often privileges white teachers, because teachers of color are more likely to be new to the classroom. In the Minneapolis teacher contract adopted in March 2022, “underrepresented” teachers can retain their jobs out of seniority order.
Sullivan said that because the contract language “has never been used in any instance whatsoever,” it was not clear which characteristics might be “underrepresented” or how the district and union might interpret it in practice.
“It clearly applies to race though, would you agree?” Schiltz asked him.
“I would agree it would at least include race,” Sullivan said.
Schiltz puzzled out a theoretical scenario that if the least senior teacher at a school was a white woman, she would lose her job. But if the least senior teacher was an African American man, he would keep his job, and the next least senior teacher would be on the chopping block. Sullivan pushed back, saying it would depend on the actual demographics.
Sullivan also argued that no one had been injured by the contract provision, and thus the government was unable to bring a lawsuit.
But Schiltz seemed to reject that argument.
“What the government is alleging here is basically right now, if I’m a white teacher in the Minneapolis school system, right now, today, because of this [collective bargaining agreement], I have weakened seniority rights compared to non-whites,” he said.
Under this system, Schiltz said, “the school system is contractually obliged to discriminate.”
Sullivan said it was an affirmative action plan, lawful under existing Supreme Court precedent, “in order to remedy past discrimination.”
Schiltz, though, also identified holes in the government’s arguments. In order to bring the anti-discrimination lawsuit, the Department of Justice needed to identify a pattern or practice. He mulled whether one contract agreement could constitute a pattern or practice.
Allen Huang, a Department of Justice attorney, argued that the collective bargaining agreement governed district behavior.
“I think the word practice can refer to one act that’s ongoing and that they’re currently engaged in,” Huang said. “They are engaged in the practice of classifying teachers by race.”
Schiltz said that in his view, the school district’s best legal argument was that the case could not proceed without including the Minneapolis Federation of Educators, a signatory to the disputed contract provisions.
If Schiltz issued an injunction against the district without including the union, the district could face conflicting legal obligations to follow both the court order and the teacher contract. But the district also argued in a legal memorandum that the union could not be included, because it is a private employer and thus only the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — not the Department of Justice — can bring claims against it.
Huang said that if this were the case, it would severely limit the government’s ability to enforce civil rights law.
“Pre-enforcement civil rights challenges would essentially not be allowed,” he said.
He suggested that Schiltz could join the union to the lawsuit in a limited capacity, but Schiltz seemed skeptical.
“What makes this hard,” Schiltz said, is “on its face it seems the union is an indispensable party.” But, to hold that would “take a big chunk” out of the anti-discrimination law allowing the government to bring the lawsuit. “Any employer who wanted to engage in discrimination could just tuck it into a [collective bargaining agreement] with the union.”
Schiltz cautioned he would take his time to decide. “There’s a lot to research here and think about, so it will be a while before I get my order out,” he said.
Budget challenges and legal challenges
The federal court challenge is the second lawsuit against the contested teacher contract provision. The Minnesota Supreme Court tossed out an earlier challenge in state court, citing a lack of standing. A Minneapolis taxpayer argued that her tax dollars were being illegally used to enforce this provision, but the Minnesota Supreme Court said she didn’t have the right to sue. In his January 2025 ruling, Justice Karl Procaccini said that the Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merit of the taxpayer’s claims — merely that she did not have standing to challenge the contract. He noted that someone else might have standing to sue.
Minneapolis Public Schools declined to comment on the active litigation.
Marcia Howard, president of the teacher chapter of the Minneapolis Federation of Educators, said the union would continue to defend the contract agreement.
“I know our collective bargaining agreement between Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Federation of Educators was hard-fought and hard-won,” she said. “We’ll continue to defend it because recruiting and retaining educators from underrepresented populations is critical to make sure that our students have a diverse cadre of teachers instructing them.”
Minneapolis Public Schools has faced extensive budget challenges in recent years, but has not laid off a teacher since 2010, when it cut a Japanese language instructor citing low enrollment in her classes.
In recent years, Minneapolis Public Schools has made budget cuts of non-tenured teachers, which don’t count as layoffs and have not triggered the contract provision. For example, in spring 2024, facing a massive budget deficit, Minneapolis Public Schools “excessed” 452 teachers, removing them from their positions with the right to apply for other jobs in the district. In the end, 50 lost their jobs altogether.
Of those, 36% were teachers of color — in a district where the number was 22% overall. But because those teachers were not tenured, Minneapolis Public Schools said, the job losses did not count as layoffs and the contract provision did not apply.
Next school year, facing a $40 million deficit, Minneapolis Public Schools expects to eliminate 144 full-time positions, according to a Tuesday night presentation to the school board’s finance committee. Donnie Belcher, a Minneapolis Public Schools spokeswoman, said that 32 of these positions were within the educator bargaining unit. She added that the number of laid off positions wouldn’t be clear until after teachers completed the reassignment process.
