In a landmark case that challenged the boundaries between state-mandated training and individual religious rights, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) has reached a settlement with former employee Aaron Norgren. The case, originally dismissed by a lower court, was revived by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in early 2024 and concluded with a monetary settlement in mid-2024.
The lawsuit alleged that DHS engaged in religious discrimination and retaliation against Norgren, a devout Christian, after he objected to mandatory employee training based on Critical Race Theory (CRT) and gender identity frameworks. Norgren, along with his father, Joseph Norgren—also a DHS employee—argued that the ideological content of the training violated their religious convictions. According to the Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC), which represented the Norgrens, DHS denied Aaron Norgren’s request for a religious exemption in August 2020. This ultimately led to his resignation.
The case gained renewed attention when the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal, affirming that Norgren had presented plausible claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In its ruling, the court recognized the legitimacy of Norgren’s objection and the possibility that DHS had retaliated against him for attempting to assert his religious rights in the workplace.
As part of the settlement, DHS agreed to pay Norgren $10,000 in damages and cover all attorney’s fees incurred by the UMLC. Though the settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by DHS, it has prompted serious reflection about the role of ideological conformity within public employment—especially when it appears to conflict with constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
“This case reaffirms the principle that public employees do not surrender their religious beliefs when they accept a government job,” stated a UMLC spokesperson. “The state cannot compel its workers to adopt or endorse any ideological framework, whether political, racial, or gender-based, as a condition of their employment.”
The Norgren case is part of a growing portfolio of litigation pursued by UMLC, which has also represented plaintiffs in lawsuits against Hennepin Healthcare, the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, and the Minnesota Department of Health. These cases often allege religious or political discrimination under the guise of workplace diversity or health mandates.
The implications of this settlement extend beyond the Norgren family. At a time when public trust in government institutions remains strained, this case raises important questions about how state agencies develop and enforce employee training protocols—and whether those protocols adequately accommodate the civil rights of religious employees.
It also underscores a long-standing criticism that DHS's internal culture resists accountability. In light of numerous past class-action lawsuits—such as the Jensen Settlement of 2009 and the Murphy v. Harpstead litigation—critics argue that the agency continues to wield its power without sufficient oversight or transparency. The Norgren settlement, while limited in scope, marks another chapter in the long and often contested history of DHS's interaction with civil rights law.
References
Upper Midwest Law Center. (2024, May 2). Settlement reached in religious discrimination lawsuit against Minnesota Department of Human Services. https://www.umlc.org/settlement-reached-in-religious-discrimination-lawsuit-against-minnesota-department-of-human-services/
Upper Midwest Law Center. (2024, January 17). Federal Court of Appeals reverses dismissal of UMLC lawsuit against MN DHS: Discrimination and retaliation for objections to extreme CRT, gender identity training. https://www.umlc.org/federal-court-of-appeals-reverses-dismissal-of-umlc-lawsuit-against-mn-dhs-discrimination-and-retaliation-for-objections-to-extreme-crt-gender-identity-training/
Upper Midwest Law Center. (n.d.). Lawsuits. https://www.umlc.org/lawsuits/
.png)
.png)
.png)
Post a Comment