sabri, et al. v. whittier alliance and city of minneapolis

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

--------------------------------------------------------- Basim Sabri, Marty Schulenberg, Mohamed Cali, Jay Webb, and Zachary Metoyer, Plaintiffs, Court File No. _______________ vs. COMPLAINT Whittier Alliance, a Minnesota not-for-profit corporation, and City of Minneapolis, a municipal corporation, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------

The above-named Plaintiffs, for their Complaint against Defendants, hereby allege the

following:

JURISDICTION

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(c), 2201,

and 2202; 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Constitution of the United States, in particular, under the

First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto, this being an action to redress the deprivation, under

color of state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom and usage of rights, privileges, and

immunities guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the Constitution of the United States. Jurisdiction is

also invoked under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).

PARTIES

2. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and of the State of Minnesota. They are

members of Defendant Whittier Alliance.

3. Defendant City of Minneapolis is a municipal corporation, organized under the

laws of the State of Minnesota.

CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 9

2

4. Defendant Whittier Alliance is a Minnesota not-for-profit corporation, nominally

private in nature but, for the reasons that will be set forth in this Complaint, is, in reality a partner

and instrumentality of Defendant City of Minneapolis.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Beginning in approximately 1987, the Mayor and City Council created a task

force concerning the Rules for Revitalization of the neighborhoods of the City of Minneapolis.

The task force urged the City to adopt a citywide planning effort with guidance from

neighborhood residents.

6. In 1989, an implementation committee proposed a revitalization program to

protect city neighborhoods, revitalize those showing signs of decline, and redirect those with

extensive problems.

7. These efforts resulted in the creation by Defendant City of Minneapolis of a

Neighborhood Revitalization Plan (NRP).

8. Essential to the NRP is the administration of government revitalization programs

and government funding through private neighborhood organizations, being either pre-existing

organizations or organizations created for the purpose of administering the NRP.

9. From the outset, Defendant City of Minneapolis insisted that only organizations

democratic in nature and open to all neighborhood residents would be eligible to participate in

the NRP (later CPP). A statement governing participation in the NRP, issued by Defendant City

of Minneapolis for years 2014-2016, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The eligibility for

participation organizations is set forth in the document as follows:

A neighborhood organization must meet all of the following criteria to be considered for community participation program funding. The organization must:


3

1. Represent a geographically-defined neighborhood (in its entirety) within Minneapolis as identified by the most current Minneapolis Communities and Neighborhoods Map as amended and approved by the City Council

2. Provide for the participation of all segments of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, homeowners, renters, property owners, business owners, immigrants, non-English speakers, low-end income residents and communities of color.

3. Ensure that membership in the organization is open to all residents of the geographically defined neighborhood. Neighborhood organizations may not impose membership dues or require attendance at a certain number of meetings before voting rights are conferred.

4. Hold regular open meetings and take positive steps to encourage all interested parties to attend and participate. An organization may only hold closed meetings in cases of labor management and legal disputes.

5. Be incorporated (or identify an appropriate fiscal agent) and have adopted by-laws. The organization must also have a grievance procedure by which its members have their concerns addressed by the organization, a conflict of interest policy and procedure, and Equal Opportunity Employment (EOE) or Affirmative Action (AA) plan and policy, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) plan and policy.

6. Have a board of directors elected, at least in part, annually by the membership of the organization. Neighborhood residents must comprise a majority of the organizations board. An elected board must be in place for a minimum of one year prior to the beginning of the contract year to be considered eligible for funding.

7. Have the capacity to properly manage an account for grant funds. This includes, but is not limited to, being current on all reporting on any previous Community Participation Program grants.

Organizations that primarily represent the interests of one segment of the neighborhood or concentrate primarily on one issue are not eligible (such as homeowner associations, rental property owner associations or business associations). 10. Defendant Whittier Alliance has been the designated representative of the

Whittier neighborhood for the purpose of NRP and CPP since at least 1991.

11. During the period in question, Defendant Whittier Alliance has been the exclusive

neighborhood organization administering NRP or CPP funding in the Whittier neighborhood.

12. The Whittier neighborhood, which has been represented by Defendant Whittier

Alliance in the Citys neighborhood and community participation programs, consist of 81 square


4

blocks, bounded by Franklin Avenue in the north, Interstate 35W on the east, Lyndale Avenue

South on the west, and Lake Street to the south.

13. Demographic data from the City of Minneapolis, attached hereto as Exhibit B,

indicates that in the 2010 census, some 51.3% of the neighborhood was Caucasian, and the

balance consisted of Black or African-American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asia or

Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, or of other races.

14. These statistics are effectively confirmed by a posting on the Whittier Alliance

website, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, indicating that the Whittier

neighborhood was 53% Caucasian, and 47% people of color.

15. Despite the fact that nearly half the population of the Whittier neighborhood

consists of people of color, including Somali, Asian, and Hispanic immigrants, Defendant

Whittier Alliances board of directors has remained virtually solely Caucasian.

16. The nearly Caucasian only composition of the Whittier Alliance board of

directors is not a coincidence; rather, it is a result of the fact that said board of directors has, over

the years, deliberately adopted policies designed to exclude racial and ethnic minorities and to

perpetuate the incumbents in power. Such deliberate exclusionary steps have included the

following:

a. Adopting interpretations of the Whittier Alliance by-laws, clearly at odds with the plain language of the by-laws, for the deliberate purpose of excluding Somali-American businesses from membership in the organization and the right to vote at the organizations annual meeting.

b. Deliberately failing to permit Somali businesses to register for the Whittier business directory, which would give them membership in the organization and the right to vote for the board of directors.

c. Deliberately denying to Plaintiffs, most of whom are ethnic or racial minorities,

the right to run for the board of directors at the 2014 annual meeting, clearly for


5

the purpose of excluding them from participation, and perpetuating the incumbent board of directors in power.

d. Deliberately adopting amendments to the by-laws of the organization, ahead of

the 2015 election, for the deliberate purpose of excluding racial minorities and critics of the incumbent board from access to running for the board of directors.

17. Defendant City of Minneapolis has either deliberately approved or, at least

exceeded or acquiesced to, these discriminatory actions by the Whittier Alliance board of

directors.

18. The action of the Whittier Alliance board of directors, as an instrumentality of

Defendant City of Minneapolis, with the approval of Defendant City of Minneapolis, were

actions taken under color of state law, statute, regulation, custom and usage, within the meaning

of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

COUNT I CAUSE OF ACTION

19. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-18, supra.

20. The actions of the Whittier Alliance, as approved by Defendant City of

Minneapolis have deprived Plaintiffs of their right to freedom of speech and expression, as

guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

COUNT II



22. The policies adopted by Defendant Whittier Alliance and acceded to by

Defendant City of Minneapolis are designed to perpetuate a racially discriminatory incumbent

board of directors which deprives Plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


6

COUNT III



24. The actions of the board of directors of Defendant Whittier Alliance, in collusion

with Defendant City of Minneapolis, deprived Plaintiffs of their right not to be discriminated

against on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin with respect to public services, in

violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.17(3).

COUNT IV EQUITY AND IRREPARABLE INJURY



26. Unless Defendants conduct is preliminarily and permanently enjoined, Plaintiffs

will suffer irreparable injury, in that they will be excluded from the neighborhood participation

process, based upon their race, religion, national origin, and criticism of the incumbent board of

Defendant Whittier Alliance.

27. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the judgment and decree of this Court as follows:

a. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, that the practices complained of in

this Complaint are unconstitutional, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

b. That this Court vacate the results of the 2014 board of directors election for

Defendant Whittier Alliance and order a new election in which Plaintiffs are permitted to run.

c. That this Court enjoin the 2015 election of the Board of Directors, until an

election can be held in the absence of the discriminatory by-law amendments adopted by


7

Defendant Whittier Alliance board which have discouraged and/or precluded Plaintiffs and other

critics of the incumbent board from running.

d. That Plaintiffs be awarded their reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorneys

fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

e. That the Court grant such other and further relief as it may deem just, fair and

equitable.

Dated: March 20, 2015. /s/ Randall D. B. Tigue Attorney Reg. No. 110000 201 Golden Valley Office Center 801 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55421 Telephone: (763) 529-9211 [email protected] and Dated: March 20, 2015. /s/ Robert Speeter Attorney Reg. No. 161743 Speeter & Johnson 1515 Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-7566 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS


8

VERIFICATION

The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath, hereby depose and say that they are the

persons named as Plaintiffs in the foregoing Complaint, that they have read the foregoing

Complaint, and that the allegations contained therein are true, except as to those matters stated

upon information and belief, and that, with respect to those matters, they believe them to be true.

Basim Sabri Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of March, 2015. Notary Public Marty Schulenberg Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of March, 2015. Notary Public Mohamed Cali Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of March, 2015. Notary Public


9

Jay Webb Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of March, 2015. Notary Public Zachary Metoyer Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of March, 2015. Notary Public


sabri, et al. v. whittier alliance and city of minneapolis

Documents