On June 7th, 2003, a resident of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) was taken to the Gateway Medical Clinic in Moose Lake, Minnesota, for a medical follow-up. The resident was transported to the back door of the clinic by MSOP security staff member Mary Foss.
Upon arrival to the clinic, they were met by Ann Sawyer of the Gateway Clinic who stated that the MSOP should call them in advance in order to have a clinic staff member waiting at the back door to let them in. Sawyer stated that if this cannot be achieved, the MSOP should send a second security staff person to register at the front desk and to let desk staff know the resident and other security staff person need to be allowed in the back door of the clinic.
The resident was stunned that he had to be brought into the medical clinic via the back door, and stated to Sawyer that he should be allowed to enter the front of the building like all other citizens. According to the resident, Sawyer responded by saying “that’s not going to happen.”
The resident was outraged at what he considers blatant bigotry, hatred and subhuman treatment, which clearly defines discrimination against a sex offender by the MSOP and the Moose Lake Gateway Clinic. The resident filed three institutional grievances outlining his complaint to the MSOP administration.
Jim Lind, assistant group supervisor (AGS) of the MSOP, responded to the resident’s grievance by stating: “There were several factors involved in MSOPs selection of and Gateway Clinic’s agreement to provide services to the patients within the MSOP. These included security measures to be taken as well as Gateway’s requests/demands of MSOP. Included among these is that all MSOP patients are to be brought into the clinic via the back door. I do not know the full reasoning behind this, but I believe it is presumptuous to lay this at the feet of discrimination of MSOP patients. There may be a variety of well thought out reasons for doing so. Bottom Line is that Gateway Clinic has made this practice a condition of providing services to MSOP patients and MSOP is going to continue to abide by this.”
(NOTE: Citizens for Reform would like to know exactly what factors were involved in Gateways agreement to provide services to MSOP patients. The tone of Lind’s response to the resident’s grievances implies discrimination.)
Randy Valentine, patient advocate of the MSOP, responded to the grievances by stating: “I understand your feelings regarding this procedure, however, many patients feel that this procedure is appropriate because it allows the patients privacy. Many patients believe the opposite of what you do. By following this proce-dure it protects a patient’s dignity and respect by keeping it private and not a public display and many patients are appreciative of that.”
(NOTE: Citizens for Reform would like to know exactly what Valentine is implying when he stated that the procedure allows patients privacy and that it protects his/her dignity and respect by keeping it private and not a public display. None of his response remotely implies conventional coherent logic. What would any other citizen of the U.S. want to protect by entering a medical clinic via the back door. Medical Clinic’s do not disclose private medical data on its patients. The response to the resident’s grievances drips with discrim-ination.)
Many African Americans of this country endured and died fighting to change this type of discrimination procedure. None of the above responses are logically related to professional standards of medical care regard-less of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Actually, the above response to the resident’s grievances implies significant state involvement in encouraging or aiding private discrimination.
When private discrimination does not stem from a close relationship with government, state action may be found on the basis of official encouragement to discriminate which may lie in the MSOP’s selection of and Gateway Clinic’s agreement to provide services to the patients of the MSOP. The state might be found to have fostered and encouraged discriminatory treatment. Authorizing, encouraging or mandating discrimination requires some elaboration. A state mandate for invidious discrimination is clearly unconsti-tutional. See: Rietman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967); Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973); E. G. McGlotten v. Connally, 338 F.Supp. 448 (D.D.C. 1972);Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, 417 U.S. 556 (1974).
The principle that bars government assistance from discrimination is easy to understand. Taxpayers should not be compelled to support such discrimination, and the state should not become implicated in it. However; the MSOP is under the direct authority of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, which receives federal funds as well as state funds generated by the taxpayers of the state of Minnesota. The Gateway clinic may also be licensed and regulated by the state of Minnesota, which may also imply state involvement. See: Jackson v. Statler Foundation, 496 F.2d 623, 638 (2d Cir. 1974); Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972).
§ 1983. Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. R.S. § 1979.
