In Brief
Brooklyn Park City Council Member Maria Tran filed a lawsuit against the city, its mayor, and council colleagues after she was censured for publicly criticizing a city employee. The suit was dismissed at the district court level, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals has sent one of her claims back for reconsideration.
Tran was elected to the Brooklyn Park City Council in November 2022. The city’s elected-official code of conduct required council members to treat city staff professionally and prohibited public criticism of individual employees. The code directed council members to communicate concerns about staff performance privately to the city manager.
Tran criticized a city coordinator’s performance. She raised concerns with the city manager and later voted against the coordinator’s reappointment to a committee. During a public council meeting, Tran stated that she did not think the coordinator was doing the job well and expressed a desire to see someone else take the position. The coordinator subsequently complained to the city’s human resources director, alleging that Tran had violated the code and created a hostile workplace environment. An independent investigation substantiated the allegations.
The city council initially contemplated a reprimand. Tran explained that she believed the coordinator had complained because she had raised concerns about alleged misconduct. She also agreed that her comments could have been interpreted differently than she intended and agreed to direct future criticism through private channels.
The council escalated the discipline. What began as a proposed letter of reprimand became a formal censure after Tran continued discussing her concerns publicly. The censure imposed significant restrictions. It limited her communications with city staff, removed her from city commissions and committees, prohibited her from representing the city at official public events, and barred city-funded participation in conferences and events on the city’s behalf.
The dispute intensified after Tran contacted a police officer to inquire about her ability to obtain a gun permit without listing her home address on the application. According to the officer’s report, Tran said she was concerned about her safety and believed other council members had assaulted her.
The mayor subsequently read a letter expressing concerns about Tran’s behavior and well-being and referencing her interest in obtaining a firearm. Tran alleged that the letter falsely stated or implied that she was mentally ill and should get help for a mental health condition.
Tran then sued the mayor, city and several council members, asserting claims including defamation, violation of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, and violation of the First Amendment. Respondents moved to dismiss Tran’s claims, and the Hennepin County District Court granted the motion.
The Court of Appeals rejected Tran’s Open Meeting Law claim and her defamation claims. However, it reversed dismissal of her First Amendment claim. It sent this issue back to the district court.
“The city has the ability to implement rules and regulations so that it can work efficiently, and it’s common for municipal government to have rules of conduct,” stated Paul Revers, of Inverson Reuvers, who represented respondents. “There is alternative paths for Ms. Tran to approach the city manager with any issue and to address any concerns she has appropriately that way.”
“The code of conduct uses words like ‘professionalism’ and ‘civility’ and ‘act with respect,’” said Marshall Tanick, of Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, who represented Tran at the appellate level. “Those are fine terms, and I think we all ought to abide by them in our daily lives. However, the First Amendment does not allow sanctioning or permitting discipline against an elected council member because some of her colleagues feel that she didn’t act professional or respectful, or with civility.”
Tran argued that the censure and its accompanying restrictions constituted retaliation for protected speech. The defendants addressed the retaliation theory only in a footnote in their reply, arguing that it was either forfeited or not actionable. The Court of Appeals declined to address the constitutionality of the code of conduct. The court concluded that the district court had erred by failing to address the retaliation claim.
“The reasons for our decision are narrow,” wrote Judge Anne Rasmusson. “We merely conclude that the district court erred by granting summary judgment without addressing whether there are genuine issues of material fact about, or whether judgment was appropriate as a matter of law on, Tran’s pleaded and argued First Amendment retaliation claim. We express no opinion on the merits of that claim, including whether it could survive summary judgment.”