In López Prater v. Trustees of Hamline University of Minnesota, (D MN, Sept. 15, 2023), a Minnesota federal district court upheld defendant's removal to federal court of a suit initially filed against it in state court by an Adjunct Art Instructor at Hamline University whose teaching contract was not renewed after she showed slides of two classic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad in her World Art class. (See prior posting.) The court held that because many of plaintiff's allegations involve matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement, her state law claims are pre-empted by §301(a) of the federal Labor-Management Relations Act that creates a federal cause of action for "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce."
The court went on to dismiss several of plaintiff's claims, but refused to dismiss her claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act for religious discrimination, saying in part:
Contrary to Hamline’s position, the Court finds that Ms. López Prater plausibly alleges that Hamline discriminated against her because she was not a Muslim or did not conform to a belief that certain Muslims share....
Ms. López Prater maintains that Hamline would not have labeled the act of showing the images “Islamophobic” if she were Muslim....
... [C]aselaw recognizes that an employer can discriminate against an employee if it acts on the preference of third parties such as customers or clients.... Therefore, Ms. López Prater alleging that Hamline discriminated against her by acting on the preferences of certain Muslim students and staff members is sufficient at this stage.
The court however dismissed plaintiff's reprisal claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, as well as her claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and her claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Volokh Conspiracy also reports on the decision.
