Second Circuit
Cobb v. Pozzi, 363 F.3d 89, 111 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Because that is the type of ‘class of one’ equal protection claim with which the district court charged the jury at the close of the trial, there can be little doubt . . . that the relevant standards for the particular Olech-based equal protection claim advanced at trial were clearly established even with respect to conduct that pre-dated Olech.”).
Eighth Circuit
Parada v. Anoka County, CV 18-795 (JRT/TNL), 2020 WL 5017839, at *13 (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2020) (stating that “under the failure to train or supervise theory, it is undisputed that Sherriff Stuart was on notice of the ACJ policy that created a pattern of conduct at the Anoka County Jail to discriminate against individuals based solely on their national origin,” and that “such discrimination violates a clearly established constitutional right”).
Al-Kadi v. Ramsey County, CV 16-2642 (JRT/TNL), 2019 WL 2448648, at *14 (D. Minn. June 12, 2019) (“She has shown that her right to be free from discriminatory treatment based on her religion was clearly established.”).
Parada v. Anoka County, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1229, 1245 (D. Minn. 2018) (“The law on selective enforcement based on race and alienage is clearly established. . . . The law clearly prohibits selective enforcement based on race and nationality. Parada has alleged sufficient facts at this stage to suggest that Oman’s refusal to accept the Matrícula Card was pretext for selective enforcement, which constitutes discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.”).
Berg v. U.S., CIV 03-4642 MJD/JSM, 2007 WL 425448, at *10 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2007) (“Berg . . . had a clearly established right to be free from being stopped solely on the basis of her race.”).
Fletcher v. Tom Thumb, Inc., CIV. 99-1680DWFSRN, 2001 WL 893913, at *7 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2001) (“Plaintiffs could, and do, argue that the customs and policies of enforcing the trespass statute without regard to the countervailing force of the MHRA and its criminal provision; failing to investigate any claims of racial discrimination in access to public accommodations; and failing to create and retain records of incidents in which such MHRA violations are alleged deprived the Plaintiffs of due process and equal protection of the laws.”).
Taylor v. Howe, 225 F.3d 993, 1012 (8th Cir. 2000) (“The right to be free from racial discrimination in matters of voting has long been clearly established.”).
Khalifa v. State, 397 N.W.2d 383, 390 (Minn. App. 1986) (“If it is found that the decision to remove the contract was racially motivated, Hiniker would not be immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).