Judge rejects city's motions as officers' bias case opens

Before the attorneys uttered their first words on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis wanted to make clear they had the "right attitude" on what he described as an important case to both sides.

That set in motion the first hearing in a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by five high-ranking black Minneapolis police officers in December. That lawsuit is among a number of recent events that have highlighted tensions within the department.

The city argued to strike several allegations in the suit that it believes are redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous. One claim involves Chief Tim Dolan and racist hate literature he allegedly placed in the lockers of black students at Henry and North High Schools in Minneapolis when he was a teenager.

Before assistant city attorney James Moore could present his case, Davis asked why he was wasting the court's time on a motion that he called difficult to prove.

He further questioned whether the city was filing the motion for political purposes.

Thirteen minutes and more criticism later, Davis denied the motion.

Davis ended the hearing with a stern warning that attorneys will face sanctions if the case became too litigious because of repeated appeals of his rulings.

John Klassen, the attorney representing the officers, said Davis made the right decision on the city's motion and that "now the suit can move forward without further delay."

The lawsuit was filed by Lt. Medaria Arradondo, Lt. Don Harris, Lt. Lee Edwards, Sgt. Charles Adams and Sgt. Dennis Hamilton, all of whom declined to comment. Adams is also suing the department over his transfer from the homicide unit. Harris and Edwards were demoted by Dolan from positions which are filled at the chief's discretion.

The suit alleges a discrimination pattern against black officers in the areas of promotion, overtime, education and disciplinary issues. The city's motion to strike portions of the suit said the complaint was "ripe with allegations that can't possibly be put into evidence."

Besides the Dolan claim, the suit also mentioned a threatening and racist letter sent to a black officer in 1992 and inappropriate remarks allegedly made by a white lieutenant. Klassen argued that the allegations might make the defendants uncomfortable, but they are not improper.

Dolan wouldn't comment on the suit but said there is no factual basis for the letter allegation.

During the hearing, Davis discussed an earlier ruling that struck "nasty" language in a suit about state Supreme Court Justice Alan Page. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and "smacked my hand," Davis said.

Moore told the judge he brought his motion forward in good faith and is having trouble determining "what the officers' case is all about." He questioned whether it was a class-action suit or a suit with specific allegations of a hostile work environment involving the five officers.

"Is this for all the African-American officers in the history of the department?" Moore asked.

Davis said "you couldn't imagine what my docket would look like" if he had to hold a hearing every time somebody wanted language removed from a suit.

In his written order ruling against the city, Davis said striking language is an extreme measure and infrequently granted.

"The broader community needs to understand that these officers are for real, and that they are going after this passionately and vigorously," he said. "They are doing this for all officers, not just officers of color."