ELECTION LAW
Special elections

Walsh v. City of Orono No. A25-0354 (Minn. Dec. 31, 2025)

The facts: On Nov. 12, 2024, Orono City Council Member Matt Johnson submitted his letter of resignation to the City Council with more than two years remaining on his term. The Council accepted the resignation and declared a vacancy.

On Nov. 25, 2024, the mayor moved that the Council appoint Claire Berrett to fill the vacancy. The motion failed on a 2-2 vote, which allowed the mayor to directly appoint Berrett to the seat. At the time of the appointment, the city did not have an ordinance governing special elections for city offices.

On Feb. 10, 2025, the City Council adopted an ordinance providing that after a vacancy is declared and a person is appointed to fill the vacancy, a special election must be held under state statute if more than 365 days remain until the next general election. The Council then adopted a resolution ordering a May 13, 2025, special election for Berrett’s seat under the newly adopted ordinance.

The type of case: The mayor filed a petition for correction of errors and omissions under Minnesota election law, seeking to quash the special election.

The issues: The Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether state statute allows a statutory city to call a special election to fill a council vacancy based on a special-election ordinance enacted after a person was appointed to fill the vacancy. The court also analyzed whether calling a special election to fill a seat that had been filled by appointment violates the Minnesota Constitution’s provisions regarding removal of officers.

The court’s ruling: The court ruled that the plain language of the statute allows a city to pass a special-election ordinance at any time before or after the vacancy arises. Minnesota Statutes, section 412.02, subdivision 2a, provides a two-step process for filling a vacancy when more than two years remain in the unexpired term:

• A person is initially appointed to temporarily hold the seat.
• A special election must be held to elect a successor to serve the remainder of the term.

The court noted that because of this two-step process, a vacancy may continue to exist until the special election occurs, even if someone has been appointed to fill the seat.

The court next considered whether Berrett could be removed only for nonfeasance or malfeasance of duties. Article VIII, Section 5, of the Minnesota Constitution provides that the Legislature may provide for the removal of inferior officers for malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of their duties. The court held that Minnesota Statutes, section 412.02, creates two categories of officeholder: an initial appointee and a successor elected at a special election. Because Berrett was a temporary officeholder, replacing her through a special election did not violate the constitutional limitations on removal from office.

What this means for cities: After filling a council vacancy with more than two years remaining on the term, a city may adopt an ordinance providing for a special election to fill the remainder of the term.

EMPLOYMENT
Regulatory taking

Zarn v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, No. 25-1358 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 2026).

The facts: Benjamin Zarn was employed as a forensic support specialist at a treatment center operated by the State of Minnesota. In August 2021, Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) adopted two COVID-19 policies for executive branch employees.

The first policy required all employees who did not exclusively telework to provide proof of a COVID-19 vaccination or undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. The second policy provided that employees who were fully vaccinated and tested positive for COVID-19 could use up to seven days of paid administrative leave if they had exhausted their sick leave.

Zarn objected to the policies on religious grounds, claiming his moral conscience prevented him from receiving the vaccine because it used aborted fetal cells and that he believed he had natural immunity to the virus. Despite his concerns, Zarn signed a COVID-19 testing consent form. He maintained that he signed the form because he feared he would be fired if he did not.

Zarn communicated his dissatisfaction with the policies to his supervisor, his union president, and state administrators. However, he did not inform anyone that he had a religious objection to the testing requirement, nor did he request a religious exemption. Instead, Zarn expressed general concerns about the COVID-19 policies.

The type of case: Zarn filed a lawsuit against the state, alleging that its refusal to accommodate his religious beliefs violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and Minnesota’s refusal of treatment statute. The district court granted summary judgment (court-ordered judgment without a trial) in favor of the state. Zarn appealed the decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The issues: The court considered whether the state violated Title VII by failing to accommodate Zarn’s religious beliefs when requiring him to take weekly COVID-19 tests. The court also analyzed whether the state’s testing requirement was job-related and consistent with business necessity under the ADA.

The court’s ruling: Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. To establish a religious discrimination claim, an employee must show they:

• Have a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement.
• Informed the employer of the conflict.
• Suffered an adverse employment action.

The court determined that Zarn failed to satisfy the second requirement. Although he expressed dissatisfaction with the policies, he did not link his concerns to religious belief or request an accommodation based on religion. Because Zarn did not satisfy this element, the court did not consider whether he suffered an adverse employment action.

The court then addressed Zarn’s ADA claim. It determined that COVID-19 tests qualify as medical examinations under the ADA. The ADA generally prohibits employers from requiring medical examinations unless the employer can demonstrate they are job-related and consistent with business necessity, and are no broader or more intrusive than necessary.

The court concluded that the state’s requirement that unvaccinated employees take weekly COVID-19 tests was consistent with business necessity because Zarn’s position required direct interaction with patients, and the state had a duty to protect them. At the time, 7,600 Minnesotans had died from COVID- 19. The court concluded that in order for the state to continue to provide services and keep its patients safe, testing those who interact with patients was reasonable. The court also determined the policy was narrowly tailored because it did not apply to employees who worked remotely or were vaccinated.

What this means for cities: Cities may not discriminate based on an employee’s religious beliefs. However, the employee must clearly inform the city of the religious conflict and request accommodation. If there is uncertainty about an employee’s intent, a city should seek clarification.

There may also be circumstances in which a city can require employees to undergo medical tests to protect other employees and the public, provided the requirement is job-related, consistent with business necessity, and narrowly tailored.

Written by Kyle Hartnett, assistant research manager with the League of Minnesota Cities. Contact: [email protected] or (651) 215-4084.