
After late-August protests, Cleveland and Filson were put on leave from their jobs. Photo: Andy Birkey, MnIndy
Anoka-Hennepin School District 11 teacher Diane Cleveland filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) in Ramsey County District Court Monday, alleging that earlier this summer it wrongly disclosed that she had been accused of harassing a student over his perceived sexual orientation.
Cleveland and another teacher, Walter Filson, who worked at the Secondary Technical Education Program (STEP), which gives 11th and 12th graders the opportunity to receive college credit, allegedly made jokes, comments and innuendos about former student Alex Merritt’s supposed sexual orientation. The teachers were put on unpaid leave, while the case, which received plenty of media attention and public outcry, concluded with a $25,000 settlement agreement in August 2009 between the district and Jodi Merritt, Alex’s mother.
The 28-page complaint (pdf) against the human rights department, which states that she was “portrayed in a negative fashion,” contends that MDHR violated some parts of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (363A.01 et. al.) and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13, when it printed her name online and provided the summary investigation, which names her, to the Star Tribune.
Cleveland’s attorney, Philip Villaume, said the case centers on her right to privacy. “The law is complicated, but the allegations are simple,” he said.
In the original complaint Cleveland wasn’t a respondent but a witness, so the department “did not have the right to use her name … It violated the confidentiality part of the settlement.”
The original charging documents don’t mention her by name and she was never interviewed by MDHR. That she’s a public employee doesn’t factor into it, he said.
Villaume declined to comment about why the other teacher isn’t a plaintiff in the case, whom he added he doesn’t represent. A press release from Villaume’s office states: “Plaintiff stresses that this action has absolutely nothing to do with the minor child’s complaint filed with the MDHR, only the release of private data by the MDHR.”
Cleveland wants a restraining order and an injunction “restraining the Defendant from publishing her name on their website or dissemination of any information relating to the Plaintiff effective until a trial on the merits of this case,” according to the complaint. She’s also seeking $50,000 in damages, including lost wages, anxiety, humiliation, pain, suffering, mental anguish attorneys’ fees and more.
Jeff Holman, spokesman for the state human rights department, passed on a response from MDHR legal affairs manager, Michael K. Browne, who said that the department acted lawfully under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
“The Commissioner has a duty to eliminate discrimination through education,” he said, adding that she has the authority to choose the most effective means. “The Department publishes information on closed cases and settlement agreements on its web site, as it did in this case, to fulfill its legislative mandate to educate Minnesotans about their rights and responsibilities under the Act.”
Further, under the law, he said, information is public once a case is closed. MDHR is required to release certain documents upon request.
“The charge included the names of those involved, including teacher Diane Cleveland; refusing to release the charge, or withholding any part of it, would potentially violate the Act,” he said.
Local data practices expert Donald Gemberling said the human rights commissioner has some latitude in releasing information for educational purposes, “showing people how to not get into trouble with the Human Rights Act,” he said.
But he’s unsure if it’s ever been tested.
“The fact that someone is not a respondent is an interesting argument,” he said, adding that it seems well within the department’s authority to do what it did. Sometimes settlement agreements include a provision for confidentiality, but it has no legal effect. “Settlements are public if they involve government entities,” he said.
Many aspects of the data practices law are black and white, but how information about public employees gets handled is murkier. It’s unclear how information flowed from the school district to the state department. Normally, when a department has some leeway in instances like this, “the judge favors the department,” Gemberling said.













17 Comments »
Comment posted November 17, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Cool to see Anna Pratt doing more stuff for MNindy.
Comment posted November 18, 2009 @ 8:38 am
She is just making herself come across as an even bigger loser! Admit you were wrong, you treated a student poorly and move onto do some good with your life!!!
Comment posted November 18, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Ohh, she’s a VICTIM because she got her hand slapped for mercilessly persecuting a kid (supposedly under her care) for his sexual orientation! Poor, poor Miss Cleveland! So picked-upon. I bet this will just encourage all those school bullies to taunt and torment her; how unfair!
Comment posted November 18, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
I find it ironic that the state department of human rights violated the state human rights laws in their rush to publish their findings.
The complaint is repetitive (as many are), but interesting in the facts. (See link above.)
When you read the law and then read what the dept of human rights did, it’s pretty obvious that they messed up.
I think that the story gets it wrong though when it comes to the dollar amount she is seeking. It’s $50,000, plus, plus, plus, plus. I think that the state might be looking at a six figure issue here. Way to go, oh responsible steward of my tax dollars.
Comment posted November 18, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
For those of you who commented before me against Ms. Cleveland – do you know ALL the facts of which you are basing your opinion? Or do you just know the one side that has been splashed across the papers? Take the time to really look into both sides of what happened – you might think differently. Why are you so quick to assume everything you read is the truth? Anyone can spin a story any way they want. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Comment posted November 19, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Tracy and Doug:
This incident was investigated by a state agency and Ms. Cleveland was found at fault. That’s a fair standard for truth. Only bigots are pretending that the facts of the case are in doubt.
Comment posted November 19, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Bigots? Strong words for someone that only gets their facts from this communist rag. I haven’t heard that word since Different Strokes. The law needs to be followed, on both sides. Whether you believe the student or the teacher, data practices violations seem to be clear. Read up on the statutes. I don’t think this kid knew what kind of weave he was spinning when this all started. Now he and the state are tangled up in it and the taxpayers will have to get them out.
Comment posted November 19, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
“Stephanie,”
I’m not sure what one can assume about where others here “only get their facts,” but it seems that you’re suggesting we’ve got our facts wrong on this story. If so, I’d appreciate your help in correcting them. Also, from your email and IP address, I’ve got to ask: are you involved with this case in a professional capacity? If so, would you like to go on record?
Comment posted November 19, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
Stephanie:
Thanks so much for making clear the moral and intellectual callibre of those defending Ms. Cleveland. This is a communist rag, and bigotry is an unfamiliar concept for both you and your favorite social studies teacher.
Wow.
Comment posted November 19, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
Me, me, me. What about the kid?
Comment posted November 19, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
I read the above postings and have to wonder… How do ANY of you know anything? I’ve read the papers, I’ve seen the news. On one side you have what the news reported, which did not look too great for these teachers. On the other hand you have a reported incident of a weapon, which was verified by the district and then an allegation by a student. How does anyone REALLY know what happened. You might think you know but really, sit back and ponder things. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but cruelty and sarcasm only makes you look bad…and immature. My response to lazercat would be “what about the kid?” He settled happily with the district, took his money and ran. If he wasn’t happy with what he got I assume he would have taken it to court. So what about him? Off living his life with 25K no doubt. My guess is this teacher is going to get a whole lot more than that. If the state statutes are correct, which of course they are, versus what the DHR did, unfortunately the DHR did this to themselves. Think about it. Read the statutes. It isn’t rocket science.
In Peace.
Comment posted November 19, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Landon Bryce: “Investigated” by the department? How do you do an investigation with out talking to the accused? The DHR admitted it did not speak to either teacher about this investigation. If you look on their website you will see that their policy is a fair and impartial investigation. Fair? Don’t think so. If this were a criminal case it would have been tossed out faster than a speeding bullet.
Comment posted November 20, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Me me me… what about the kid? The kid walked away with 25K in his pocket. If you look at the history of case law, that is a pittance for what he was supposedly subjected to. Why didn’t he sue, take it to court? My guess would be he would have lost? Just a thought.
In peace
Pingback posted November 20, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
[...] leave a comment » Here’s a story I wrote for the Minnesota Independent: [...]
Comment posted November 30, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
The lawyers really need to stop trying this case in the jaded court of public opinion. It looks very badly in the eyes of impartial judges to attempt to sway the public against a ruling before it has even been made.
Comment posted December 4, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
You obviously don’t know what you are talking about Trish.
If you knew the details like I do, you would be on the kids side.
Comment posted December 5, 2009 @ 12:07 am
I DO know the details, in fact I know all the details, lets just say I have an inside scoop. Regardless of “who’s side” you are on, look at the statute, the state is going to lose this one. Bottom line is they screwed up, big. She will walk away with a whole lot more than the kid did. Sorry to say but the state did it to themselves. This is round one. Guess who they are going after next???
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment