Education Law Attorney
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which effectively reversed decades of precedent that had permitted an applicant’s race to be considered in the college admissions process in furtherance of campus diversity. The Supreme Court held that a race-conscious admissions program implemented at the University of North Carolina, a state-run university, violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Court further held that Title VI similarly prohibited the race-conscious admissions program at Harvard, a private post-secondary institution which accepts federal funds, and which, for that reason, is prohibited under Title VI from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin.
Although the Supreme Court’s Decision in Students for Fair Admissions does not directly impact K-12 public schools, the Court’s reasoning and analysis is being used as part of a broader national effort to curtail what the Trump Administration considers improper Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) related initiatives in public programs and workplaces. Since taking office, President Trump has issued multiple Executive Orders reflecting his administration’s priorities surrounding DEI: Executive Order 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity) and Executive Order 14151 (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing).
Both the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Justice have also focused their attention and efforts on alleged unlawful discrimination related to DEI in the workplace. On December 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Minneapolis Public Schools (“School District”), its governing Board, and the Superintendent. The Complaint alleges the School District, through its collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the teachers’ union, is violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against teachers based on their race, color, sex, and national origin.
According to the Complaint, the CBA requires the School District to “excess” or involuntarily reassign teachers based on seniority, unless a teacher is underrepresented, in which case the School District is required “to skip the ‘underrepresented’ teacher and ‘excess’ or reassign a ‘non-underrepresented’ teacher instead.” The Complaint also alleges the CBA requires the School District to reinstate underrepresented teachers first, without consideration for seniority or the order in which the excessing or layoffs occurred. Lastly, the Complaint alleges the CBA permits the School District to exempt underrepresented teachers from layoffs.
As set forth more fully in the Complaint, the Department of Justice is also challenging a Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) between the School District and Black Men Teach, a third-party Minnesota-based non-profit organization included in the CBA. According to its website, blackmenteach.org, Black Men Teach is committed to recruiting and retaining Black, male elementary school teachers. The Complaint alleges the MOA provides an interview and job offer process for organization “fellows” at a partnership elementary school, which is separate from the process for all other applicants, and that organization fellows are exempt from the CBA’s seniority-based or general policies on excessing, involuntary reassignment, and reinstatement. The Complaint further alleges that teachers who are not fellows lack the same opportunity as organization fellows receive to participate in professional development events sponsored by the organization five days per year, without loss of pay or benefits.
The disputed provisions in the School District’s CBA and MOA reflect the kind of preferential employment practices that the federal government has concluded are in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. For that reason, the Complaint seeks declaratory relief, meaning the U.S. Department of Justice is asking the Court to declare that the provisions at issue in the CBA and MOA are discriminatory, and to issue injunctions prohibiting the School District from implementing the disputed provisions or entering into similar agreements in the future.
It is too soon to predict what may become of this pending litigation or whether the U.S. Department of Education’s claims have any legal merit. However, as public school districts across Minnesota and the nation continue to grapple with teacher shortages, districts should proactively review their hiring protocols with legal counsel. Districts should also seek legal advice whenever they are considering possible adoption of new policies or protocols designed to recruit or retain qualified licensed personnel, including staff with diverse backgrounds and experiences.
This article is intended to provide general information with commentary. It should not be relied on as legal advice. If required, legal advice regarding this topic should be obtained from district legal counsel.
Alex Ivan is a shareholder at Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, whose practice is focused on all aspects of education law, with particular emphasis in special education law and civil litigation. For more information, please contact him at (612) 337-9304 or aivan@kennedy-graven.com.
© Alex D. Ivan (2026). Used with permission.
