In the beginning, employers had the full management rights to basically do whatever they wanted; they could direct and utilize their workforce any way they saw fit. However, as time wore on, management rights began to be chipped away by little things, such as laws, regulations, employment contracts, and collective bargaining agreements. However, one thing that seemed to remain solely within the purview of management was the selection and direction of employees. However, even that right can be curtailed if an employer chooses to give it away.
The city of Minneapolis, through its charter, gives the ultimate authority to its mayor to appoint, discipline, or discharge an employee in the city’s police department, subject to Civil Service Commission rules. However, the Charter also includes a provision regarding the staffing of the city’s police force:
The personnel of the police department shall be established and maintained at a ratio… of not less than one and seven-tenths (1.7) employees per one thousand (1,000) of population of the city according to the latest United States official census.
In Cathy Spann, et al. v. Minneapolis City Council, et al., eight residents filed a writ of mandamus in August 2020. They sought to compel the city to employ at least .0017 sworn police officers per Minneapolis resident, claiming that due to a number of officer retirements, medical leaves, and disability leaves there were fewer that the required number of officers under the charter. The parties agreed that by the middle of 2021, the department would be down to 690 sworn officers after 169 officers left the department following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020.
The district court found that the citizens established essential elements warranting a writ of mandamus that required the city to take all actions to fund a police force of 730 officers, and commanded the city to make a return of the writ specifying what it had done to comply by June 30, 2022. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, stating that the city was only required to fund, not employ, a certain number of officers under the charter, and that the mayor “must use those funds for their designated purpose.” The residents appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The Court then addressed whether the language of the charter required the employment of a minimum number of officers, rather than just the funding. In analyzing the charter, the Court had to determine if the charter was susceptible “to more than one reasonable interpretation.” The Court found that while the charter was open to interpretation, before the 2013 charter amendment was approved by voters, the mayor was required to “actually employ 731 officers,” and because the 2013 amendment was not meant to substantively change the powers of the mayor, that the mayor had “a clear legal duty to employ” that number of officers.
The Court then found that the city council had provided funding for the minimum number of officers for the city, and met its duty under the charter. The final question to be resolved was whether the district court’s writ, directing the mayor to take all necessary action to employ 731 officers, was appropriate. The Court found that because the writ only commanded the mayor to fulfill his legal duty to employ 731 officers, and not how to do it, the writ was appropriate. That the mayor retained his discretion in how the city would go about meeting its minimum number of officers allowed the writ to be upheld; the mayor was simply required to show cause in the future if he was unable to reach the minimum numbers established by the Charter.
In the end, not much has changed for the city. It is required to continue to fund for the minimum number of officers, and give its best efforts to hire enough officers to meet its minimums. Given the struggles of all major metropolitan areas across the country to hire officers, there is ample evidence to show why a municipality is having difficulty meeting its hiring goals.
On a broader level, the city made its own decision (through its voters) to limit the city’s discretion on hiring when it established its minimum police force numbers. Limitations on management rights can come through in all shapes and forms, and it is important that every employer both understands its management rights, and does not take any steps to diminish those rights without a sufficient quid pro quo. If you, or your organization need assistance in understanding your rights, or exercising them without violating a law or agreement, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.