Jeanette Renstrom, a former head grocery buyer at Nash Finch's St. Cloud distribution center, sued the company under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, claiming she was paid less than two male head grocery buyers at other centers for equal work. The court granted Nash Finch's motion for summary judgment. It held that the male employees were not proper comparators under the EPA because they worked at different distribution centers, which qualified as separate establishments, and because Renstrom's job involved less responsibility, such as supervising fewer buyers and managing smaller volumes. The court also noted that Renstrom did not pursue a separate disparate-treatment claim under Title VII or the MHRA.
Wendy Binion sued the City of St. Paul and multiple police officers under federal and state law after her arrest while videotaping protests at the 2008 Republican National Convention. Officers acted on a radio alert describing a woman carrying bricks and detained Binion, who matched the description and wore press credentials, but determined within minutes that she had no weapons or bricks. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' summary judgment motion, holding that officers could initially rely on information from other officers for qualified immunity purposes but could not disregard plainly exculpatory facts discovered on the scene when assessing ongoing detention or arrest. Factual disputes over events after the initial stop, including crowd interactions, prevented full resolution on certain claims such as excessive force or false arrest.
In Young v. Klass, plaintiff Dwight Young sued security guard Kyle Klass and his employer SecureForce after being instructed to leave a Minneapolis arcade, arrested shortly afterward by police on disorderly conduct and trespassing charges based on information from Klass, and held overnight in jail before the charges were dropped. Young asserted state-law claims against Klass for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and negligence. The court denied summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution and false-imprisonment claims, granted summary judgment on the abuse-of-process claim, and granted in part and denied in part summary judgment on the negligence claim, because genuine issues of material fact existed under the plaintiff's version of events regarding whether Klass provided false information that caused the arrest and prosecution.
In United States v. Foster, a jury convicted defendant Rodney Foster of unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition, but the district court later granted his motion for acquittal after finding that the gun and ammunition had been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The government moved for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that Foster lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search of the car because he was only a passenger and did not own it. The court denied the motion, holding that the government had waived the standing argument by failing to raise it at any point before, during, or after trial despite multiple opportunities, and that Supreme Court precedent establishes such arguments are waivable and not jurisdictional.
The case involves plaintiffs Patricia Gearin and her recycling businesses suing the City of Maplewood and its building official under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation, interference with petition and court access rights, equal protection violations, and procedural and substantive due process claims arising from code enforcement actions on a commercial building purchased for business relocation. These actions followed Gearin's prior complaints about toxic dumping near her home and the City's permitting decisions. The court addressed defendants' motion for summary judgment, granting it in part and denying it in part after reviewing the factual background of occupancy classifications, zoning requirements, inspections, and the parties' disputes over compliance.
In United States v. Foster, defendant Rodney Foster was charged under federal law with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon after Minneapolis police stopped the car in which he was a passenger, searched his person and the vehicle, and recovered a magazine of ammunition and a loaded handgun. Following a jury conviction, the court reconsidered its earlier denial of Foster's motion to suppress and concluded that the traffic stop and searches violated the Fourth Amendment, as the officers lacked probable cause for the stop and reasonable suspicion for the searches of Foster and the car. The court therefore suppressed the gun and ammunition, determined that insufficient evidence remained to support the conviction, and granted Foster's motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict.