Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled on defendants’ motion to dismiss Professor Russell Stewart’s constitutional claims arising from his termination for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination-or-testing policy. The court dismissed his due process, equal protection, and unconstitutional-conditions claims, but allowed his First Amendment retaliation claim against Lake Superior College officials to proceed. Governor Timothy Walz was dismissed as a defendant.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Stewart's equal protection claim plausibly challenged a policy that required onsite state employees to vaccinate against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing.
- Whether the vaccination-or-testing policy violated Stewart's substantive due process rights by infringing a fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, vaccination, or testing.
- Whether Stewart plausibly alleged that his email criticizing the policy and public officials was protected speech and a substantial or motivating factor in his termination, supporting a First Amendment retaliation claim.
- Whether Stewart stated a First Amendment unconstitutional-conditions claim.
- Whether Governor Walz was a proper defendant after the equal protection and due process claims against him were dismissed.
Holdings
- The policy satisfied rational basis review because requiring onsite state employees to vaccinate or undergo regular testing was rationally related to the legitimate state interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19. Stewart's equal protection claim was dismissed.
- The policy was subject to rational basis review because Stewart did not plausibly allege infringement of a fundamental right. The policy readily satisfied rational basis review, and his substantive due process claim was dismissed.
- Stewart plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim. His email criticizing the COVID-19 policy and public officials concerned a matter of public concern, and the complaint plausibly alleged that the email was a substantial or motivating factor in his termination.
- Stewart failed to state an unconstitutional-conditions claim because he did not allege that defendants conditioned a government benefit, including employment, on surrendering his free-speech rights. That claim was dismissed.
- Governor Walz was removed as a defendant because the only claims asserted against him were the equal protection and substantive due process claims, both of which were dismissed.
Key quotations
“To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”” (Discussion § I)
“Criticism of public officials and the administration of governmental policies “lies at the heart of” such protected speech.” (Discussion § IV)
Factual background
Stewart had been employed as a tenured professor at Lake Superior College since 1992. In 2021, Minnesota required onsite state employees either to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination or undergo weekly testing; Stewart refused both compliance and proposed privacy and testing accommodations. After being placed on unpaid leave, Stewart emailed his students criticizing the policy and Governor Walz, and the College later cited both his noncompliance and the email in disciplinary proceedings and his proposed discharge. His dismissal was upheld.
Procedural history
Russell Stewart, a tenured public-college professor, was placed on unpaid leave and later terminated after refusing to comply with a policy requiring vaccination or weekly COVID-19 testing. He filed this action alleging due process, equal protection, First Amendment retaliation, and unconstitutional-conditions claims. The district court denied the motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim, dismissed the remaining claims, and removed Governor Walz as a defendant.