CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
--------------------------------------------------------Basim Sabri, Marty Schulenberg, Mohamed
Cali, Jay Webb, and Zachary Metoyer,
Plaintiffs,

Court File No. _______________

vs.

COMPLAINT

Whittier Alliance, a Minnesota not-for-profit

corporation, and City of Minneapolis,
a municipal corporation,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------The above-named Plaintiffs, for their Complaint against Defendants, hereby allege the
following:
JURISDICTION
1.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(c), 2201,

and 2202; 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Constitution of the United States, in particular, under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto, this being an action to redress the deprivation, under
color of state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom and usage of rights, privileges, and
immunities guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the Constitution of the United States. Jurisdiction is
also invoked under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
PARTIES
2.

Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and of the State of Minnesota. They are

members of Defendant Whittier Alliance.

3.

Defendant City of Minneapolis is a municipal corporation, organized under the

laws of the State of Minnesota.

CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 9

4.

Defendant Whittier Alliance is a Minnesota not-for-profit corporation, nominally

private in nature but, for the reasons that will be set forth in this Complaint, is, in reality a partner
and instrumentality of Defendant City of Minneapolis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5.

Beginning in approximately 1987, the Mayor and City Council created a task

force concerning the Rules for Revitalization of the neighborhoods of the City of Minneapolis.
The task force urged the City to adopt a citywide planning effort with guidance from
neighborhood residents.
6.

In 1989, an implementation committee proposed a revitalization program to

protect city neighborhoods, revitalize those showing signs of decline, and redirect those with
extensive problems.
7.

These efforts resulted in the creation by Defendant City of Minneapolis of a

Neighborhood Revitalization Plan (NRP).

8.

Essential to the NRP is the administration of government revitalization programs

and government funding through private neighborhood organizations, being either pre-existing
organizations or organizations created for the purpose of administering the NRP.
9.

From the outset, Defendant City of Minneapolis insisted that only organizations

democratic in nature and open to all neighborhood residents would be eligible to participate in
the NRP (later CPP). A statement governing participation in the NRP, issued by Defendant City
of Minneapolis for years 2014-2016, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The eligibility for
participation organizations is set forth in the document as follows:
A neighborhood organization must meet all of the following criteria to be
considered for community participation program funding. The organization must:

CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 9

1.

Represent a geographically-defined neighborhood (in its entirety) within

Minneapolis as identified by the most current Minneapolis Communities
and Neighborhoods Map as amended and approved by the City Council
2.
Provide for the participation of all segments of the neighborhood,
including, but not limited to, homeowners, renters, property owners,
business owners, immigrants, non-English speakers, low-end income
residents and communities of color.
3.
Ensure that membership in the organization is open to all residents of the
geographically defined neighborhood. Neighborhood organizations may
not impose membership dues or require attendance at a certain number of
meetings before voting rights are conferred.
4.
Hold regular open meetings and take positive steps to encourage all
interested parties to attend and participate. An organization may only hold
closed meetings in cases of labor management and legal disputes.
5.
Be incorporated (or identify an appropriate fiscal agent) and have adopted
by-laws. The organization must also have a grievance procedure by which
its members have their concerns addressed by the organization, a conflict
of interest policy and procedure, and Equal Opportunity Employment
(EOE) or Affirmative Action (AA) plan and policy, and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) plan and policy.
6.
Have a board of directors elected, at least in part, annually by the
membership of the organization. Neighborhood residents must comprise a
majority of the organizations board. An elected board must be in place for
a minimum of one year prior to the beginning of the contract year to be
considered eligible for funding.
7.
Have the capacity to properly manage an account for grant funds. This
includes, but is not limited to, being current on all reporting on any
previous Community Participation Program grants.
Organizations that primarily represent the interests of one segment of the
neighborhood or concentrate primarily on one issue are not eligible (such as
homeowner associations, rental property owner associations or business
associations).
10.

Defendant Whittier Alliance has been the designated representative of the

Whittier neighborhood for the purpose of NRP and CPP since at least 1991.
11.

During the period in question, Defendant Whittier Alliance has been the exclusive

neighborhood organization administering NRP or CPP funding in the Whittier neighborhood.

12.

The Whittier neighborhood, which has been represented by Defendant Whittier

Alliance in the Citys neighborhood and community participation programs, consist of 81 square

CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 9

blocks, bounded by Franklin Avenue in the north, Interstate 35W on the east, Lyndale Avenue
South on the west, and Lake Street to the south.
13.

Demographic data from the City of Minneapolis, attached hereto as Exhibit B,

indicates that in the 2010 census, some 51.3% of the neighborhood was Caucasian, and the
balance consisted of Black or African-American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asia or
Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, or of other races.
14.

These statistics are effectively confirmed by a posting on the Whittier Alliance

website, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, indicating that the Whittier
neighborhood was 53% Caucasian, and 47% people of color.
15.

Despite the fact that nearly half the population of the Whittier neighborhood

consists of people of color, including Somali, Asian, and Hispanic immigrants, Defendant
Whittier Alliances board of directors has remained virtually solely Caucasian.
16.

The nearly Caucasian only composition of the Whittier Alliance board of

directors is not a coincidence; rather, it is a result of the fact that said board of directors has, over
the years, deliberately adopted policies designed to exclude racial and ethnic minorities and to
perpetuate the incumbents in power. Such deliberate exclusionary steps have included the
following:
a.

Adopting interpretations of the Whittier Alliance by-laws, clearly at odds with the
plain language of the by-laws, for the deliberate purpose of excluding SomaliAmerican businesses from membership in the organization and the right to vote at
the organizations annual meeting.

b.

Deliberately failing to permit Somali businesses to register for the Whittier

business directory, which would give them membership in the organization and
the right to vote for the board of directors.

c.

Deliberately denying to Plaintiffs, most of whom are ethnic or racial minorities,

the right to run for the board of directors at the 2014 annual meeting, clearly for

CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 5 of 9

the purpose of excluding them from participation, and perpetuating the incumbent
board of directors in power.
d.

Deliberately adopting amendments to the by-laws of the organization, ahead of

the 2015 election, for the deliberate purpose of excluding racial minorities and
critics of the incumbent board from access to running for the board of directors.

17.

Defendant City of Minneapolis has either deliberately approved or, at least

exceeded or acquiesced to, these discriminatory actions by the Whittier Alliance board of
directors.
18.

The action of the Whittier Alliance board of directors, as an instrumentality of

Defendant City of Minneapolis, with the approval of Defendant City of Minneapolis, were
actions taken under color of state law, statute, regulation, custom and usage, within the meaning
of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
COUNT I CAUSE OF ACTION
19.

Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-18, supra.

20.

The actions of the Whittier Alliance, as approved by Defendant City of

Minneapolis have deprived Plaintiffs of their right to freedom of speech and expression, as
guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
COUNT II
21.

Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-20, supra.

22.

The policies adopted by Defendant Whittier Alliance and acceded to by

Defendant City of Minneapolis are designed to perpetuate a racially discriminatory incumbent

board of directors which deprives Plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 6 of 9

COUNT III
23.

Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-22, supra.

24.

The actions of the board of directors of Defendant Whittier Alliance, in collusion

with Defendant City of Minneapolis, deprived Plaintiffs of their right not to be discriminated
against on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin with respect to public services, in
violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.17(3).
COUNT IV EQUITY AND IRREPARABLE INJURY
25.

Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-24, supra.

26.

Unless Defendants conduct is preliminarily and permanently enjoined, Plaintiffs

will suffer irreparable injury, in that they will be excluded from the neighborhood participation
process, based upon their race, religion, national origin, and criticism of the incumbent board of
Defendant Whittier Alliance.
27.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the judgment and decree of this Court as follows:
a.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, that the practices complained of in

this Complaint are unconstitutional, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
b.

That this Court vacate the results of the 2014 board of directors election for

Defendant Whittier Alliance and order a new election in which Plaintiffs are permitted to run.
c.

That this Court enjoin the 2015 election of the Board of Directors, until an

election can be held in the absence of the discriminatory by-law amendments adopted by

CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 7 of 9

Defendant Whittier Alliance board which have discouraged and/or precluded Plaintiffs and other
critics of the incumbent board from running.
d.

That Plaintiffs be awarded their reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorneys

fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

e.

That the Court grant such other and further relief as it may deem just, fair and

equitable.
Dated: March 20, 2015.

/s/ Randall D. B. Tigue

Attorney Reg. No. 110000
201 Golden Valley Office Center
801 North Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55421
Telephone: (763) 529-9211
tiguelaw@msn.com
and

Dated: March 20, 2015.

/s/ Robert Speeter

Attorney Reg. No. 161743
Speeter & Johnson
1515 Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 339-7566
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 8 of 9

VERIFICATION
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath, hereby depose and say that they are the
persons named as Plaintiffs in the foregoing Complaint, that they have read the foregoing
Complaint, and that the allegations contained therein are true, except as to those matters stated
upon information and belief, and that, with respect to those matters, they believe them to be true.

Basim Sabri
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _____ day of March, 2015.

Notary Public

Marty Schulenberg
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _____ day of March, 2015.

Notary Public

Mohamed Cali
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _____ day of March, 2015.

Notary Public

CASE 0:15-cv-01578-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 9 of 9

Jay Webb
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _____ day of March, 2015.

Notary Public

Zachary Metoyer
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _____ day of March, 2015.

Notary Public