In March 2022, City of Minneapolis police officer Christopher Humphrey applied for promotion to sergeant while under investigation for alleged misconduct involving alcohol and a weapon during a police training event. Despite the pending investigation, the City allowed Humphrey to test for the position, and in August 2022, he was placed sixth on the eligibility list, which was valid until June 2024. Over the next year, several candidates were promoted while Humphrey remained on the list.
In September 2023, the City removed Humphrey from the list under Minneapolis Civil Service Rule 6.12.E, which permits removal of candidates whose employment record is “unsatisfactory for any cause, which could impair the safe, efficient, and effective operation of City service.” The City provided no explanation beyond citing this rule. Humphrey appealed administratively, triggering a review by the City’s HR director, who prepared a report for the Civil Service Commission. The report cited sworn statements from Humphrey, who admitted to being intoxicated during the training event, along with photographic evidence showing him asleep next to a beer can with his service weapon accessible. Although the Department had not yet finalized disciplinary action, the HR director concluded the evidence demonstrated unsatisfactory conduct warranting removal under Rule 6.12.E. In February 2024, the Commission upheld the removal without further hearing.
Humphrey sought review in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, raising two arguments: (1) that the removal lacked substantial evidence; and (2) that it violated his due process rights. The Court rejected both claims.
On the evidentiary challenge, the Court emphasized that administrative decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness and may only be overturned if unsupported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” The Court found this standard met through Humphrey’s own admissions and photographic evidence, which reasonably supported the conclusion that his conduct “could impair” police operations.
“To convince us otherwise, Humphrey contends that at the time he was removed from the list, he ‘did not have a record of employment that was unsatisfactory.’ He notes that the Department did not complete its investigations or impose any discipline on him for this conduct until after he was removed from the list. But Rule 6.12.E does not require discipline before the City can remove a candidate from the list. It only requires that the employee ‘has a record of employment that has been unsatisfactory which could impair the safe, efficient, and effective operation of City service.’ Here, Humphrey’s employment record shows that he engaged in the conduct in question prior to his removal from the list. As a result, this argument is unavailing.”
The due process analysis turned on whether Humphrey had a constitutionally protected property interest in remaining on the eligibility list. The Court explained that such an interest requires “more than a unilateral expectation,” it demands a “legitimate claim of entitlement” grounded in law or contract. The Court found no such entitlement in the civil service rules, which granted the City discretion to remove candidates under broad criteria like “any good and sufficient reason” (Rule 6.12.H) or unsatisfactory records (Rule 6.12.E).
“An applicant’s expectation of promotion based on test ranking or prior employment fails to rise to the level of a property interest entitled to constitutional protection” if the “employer may consider subjective and objective factors in making promotion decisions.” The Court acknowledged Humphrey’s procedural fairness concerns, including the lack of post-appeal submission opportunities or direct HR contact, but reiterated that without a threshold property interest, “there is no basis upon which to conclude that his due process rights were violated.”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the commission’s decision, holding both that substantial evidence supported Humphrey’s removal and that no due process violation occurred.
Humphrey v. City of Minneapolis Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 2025 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 173* (Minn. Ct. App. 2025).