
A federal judge has dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s racial discrimination lawsuit against Minneapolis Public Schools, but the ruling was hardly an endorsement of the district’s controversial policy — first exposed by Alpha News in 2022.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz dismissed the case Aug. 10 without prejudice on procedural and jurisdictional grounds while expressing doubts about the legality of a provision that gives certain teachers different protections from layoffs and other employment actions based on race.
“As explained at the hearing, the Court has grave doubts about the legality of the racial discrimination in which MPS is forced to engage pursuant to Article 15,” Schiltz wrote.
As Alpha News previously reported, the Justice Department sued MPS last year, alleging its collective bargaining agreement with the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
When staff reductions occur at a particular school, teachers are generally subject to layoffs based on reverse seniority. But under the challenged provision, if the next teacher in line is a member of a population considered “underrepresented,” MPS must skip that teacher and instead lay off the next least senior teacher who is not a member of an underrepresented population. Similar exceptions apply to involuntary reassignments, reinstatement and districtwide layoffs.
The language remains in the district’s current 2025-2027 contract.
According to Schiltz, MPS does not dispute that “underrepresented” is a proxy for at least race, although he said the district struggled during a May hearing to explain precisely which populations qualify.
“MPS does not deny that the challenged provisions require it to discriminate in favor of black teachers and against white teachers on the basis of race,” Schiltz wrote. “It contends, however, that the discrimination is lawful, voluntary, and remedial under [case law].”
‘White teachers have weaker seniority rights’
MPS argued that the Justice Department didn’t have a case in part because the race-based exceptions have never actually been used to determine whether a teacher was laid off.
Schiltz rejected that argument, saying the contractual disparity exists regardless of whether layoffs have occurred.
“Under Article 15, white teachers have weaker seniority rights than black teachers,” he wrote. “This disparity does not spring into existence only if excessing occurs. It exists right now—and will continue to exist as long as the CBA remains in force.”
Schiltz also questioned whether MPS could justify the policy under federal law.
“Generally speaking, a provision requiring a government entity to discriminate on the basis of race is lawful only if it is clearly written, narrowly tailored, and necessary to remedy past discrimination by that entity. Article 15 does not appear to meet the first two criteria—MPS cannot even identity [sic] the ‘populations’ to which it applies—and MPS appears to have done little or nothing to inquire into whether Article 15 meets the third requirement.”
Why the case was dismissed
Despite those concerns, Schiltz did not rule on whether the policy violates federal civil rights law.
Instead, he found the lawsuit could not proceed without the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, which negotiated and signed the contract but was not named as a defendant. Schiltz concluded the case could not proceed “in equity and good conscience” without the union and dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice.
The ruling does not mean the policy has been found legal.
Schiltz noted that an aggrieved teacher could file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and said Article 15 “presently harms white teachers” even though it has not yet been used to lay off a more-senior white teacher in favor of a less-senior black teacher.









