Loading...
Gonzalez �' Minnesota Department of RECEIVE� , � �� � HUMAN RIGHTS .� FEB 0 7 2�14 CITY CLERI� February 6, 2014 REF: 61294 Sergio Gonzalez v. City of Saint Paul Police Sergio Gonzalez 3455 Minnehaha Ave Apt 2 Minneapolis, MN 55406 City of Saint Paul Police 310 City Hall 15 W Kellogg Blvd Saint Paul, MN 55102 ATTN: Shari Moore, City Clerk The Department of Human Rights has reviewed the issues related to, and the information provided in connection with the above-referenced charge. Based upon that review, and under the authority granted by Minnesota Statute §363A.28, subd. 6(h), the Commissioner has determined not to process this charge further. Under this authority the Commissioner may determine which charges are processed and the order in which charges are processed. The Commissioner may dismiss a charge if further use of the DepartmenYs resources is not warranted. THIS CHARGE HAS BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORITY. The basis for this decision is outlined on the enclosed memorandum. The department will take no further action on this matter. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute §363A.33, subd. 1(1), the charging party may bring a civil action against the respondent in district court within 45 days of receipt of the dismissal of this case. Sincerely, . �• � Kevin M. Lindsey, Commissioner Minnesota Department of Human Rights Enclosure(s) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Freeman Building • 625 Robert Street North • Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Tel 651.539.1100 • TTY 651.296.1283 • Toll Free 1.800.657.3704 • Fax 651.296.9042 • www.humanrights.state.mn.us ' ;- Minnesota Department of � , HUMAN RIGHTS � c: Rachel G Tierney AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Freeman Building • 625 Robert Street North • Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Tel 651.539.1100 • TTY 651.296.1283 • Toll Free 1.800.657.3704 • Fax 651.296.9042 • www.humanrights.state.mn.us REF: 61294 MEMORANDUM The Minnesota Department of Human Rights, having commenced an inquiry into the allegations made by the charging party, has dismissed this charge for the following reasons: 1. The charging party is of a Mexican descent. He alleged the respondent discriminated against him in the area of Public service on the basis of national origin as prohibited by the Minnesota Human Right Act. 2. The respondent denied the charging party was treated in a discriminatory manner and provided appropriate documentation to support its position. 3. On March 31, 2012, the charging party was driving and was stopped by two of the respondent's officers in a squad car in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The respondent's officers - - ask�d�Me sharging par�y to take an Intoxilyzer test and tf� charging party r�#used. - 4. The charging party was arrested and taken to the county jail. 5. On April 2, 2013, the charging party filed a charge of discrimination with this Department alleging that the respondent used excessive force when he was arrested due to his national origin. 6. The Human Rights Act provides that a charge must be filed within one year of the alleged discriminatory practice. 7. Because the alleged discrimination was on March 31, 2012, it was not possible to establish a violation of the Act within one year of the filing date, April 2, 2013. 8. Because the alleged discriminatory action is outside the statutory one year limit for filing a charge of discrimination, the Department has dismissed this charge. � ;'� Minnesota Department of � � ' HUMAN RIGHTS R�CEIVED � ��B 0'7 2014 CITY CLERK February 6, 2014 REF: 61294 Sergio Gonzalez v. City of Saint Paul Police Sergio Gonzalez 3455 Minnehaha Ave Apt 2 Minneapolis, MN 55406 i City of Saint Paul Police 310 City Hall 15 W Kellogg Bivd Saint Paul, MN 55102 ATTN: Shari Moore, City Clerk The Department of Human Rights has reviewed the issues related to, and the information provided in connection with the above-referenced charge. Based upon that review, and under the authority granted by Minnesota Statute §363A.28, subd. 6(h), the Commissioner has determined not to process this charge further. Under this authority the Commissioner may determine which charges are processed and the order in which charges are processed. The Commissioner may dismiss a charge if further use of the DepartmenYs resources is not warranted. THIS CHARGE HAS BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORITY. The basis for this decision is outlined on the enclosed memorandum. The department will take no further action on this matter. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute §363A.33, subd. 1(1), the charging party may bring a civil action against the respondent in district court within 45 days of receipt of the dismissal of this case. Sincerely, „ 1, _ (�, Kevin M. Lindsey, Commissioner Minnesota Department of Human Rights Enclosure(s) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Freeman Building • 625 Robert Street North • Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Tel 651.539.1100 •TTY 651.296.1283 • Toll Free 1.800.657.3704 • Fax 651.296.9042 • www.humanrightsstate.mn.us � ; Minnesota Department of � s HUMAN RIGHTS � � i c: Rachel G Tierney - I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Freeman Building • 625 Robert Street North • Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Tel 651.539.1100 • TTY 651.296.1283 • Toll Free 1.800.657.3704 • Fax 651.296.9042 • www.humanrights.state.mn.us REF: 61294 MEMORANDUM The Minnesota Department of Human Rights, having commenced an inquiry into the allegations made by the charging party, has dismissed this charge for the following reasons: 1. The charging party is of a Mexican descent. He alleged the respondent discriminated against him in the area of Public service on the basis of national origin as prohibited by the Minnesota Human Right Act. 2. The respondent denied the charging party was treated in a discriminatory manner and provided appropriate documentation to support its position. 3. On March 31, 2012, the charging party was driving and was stopped by two of the respondent's officers in a squad car in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The respondent's officers asked the charging party to take an Intoxilyzer test and the charging party refused. 4. The charging party was arrested and taken to the county jail. 5. On April 2, 2013, the charging party filed a charge of discrimination with this Department alleging that the respondent used excessive force when he was arrested due to his national origin. 6. The Human Rights Act provides that a charge must be filed within one year of the alleged discriminatory practice. 7. Because the alleged discrimination was on March 31, 2012, it was not possible to establish a violation of the Act within one year of the filing date, April 2, 2013. 8. Because the alleged discriminatory action is outside the statutory one year limit for filing a charge of discrimination, the Departr�ent has dismissed this charge.