MINNEAPOLIS — Aaron Norgren, a security officer at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in St. Peter, was required in 2020 — like all Department of Human Services employees — to watch several training videos.
They included including one titled "How to be Anti-Racist," which included a full minute of silence for the murder of George Floyd and centered on the teachings of teachings of Dr. Ibram X. Kendi, who wrote a book called "How to Be an Antiracist."
Norgren opposed that as well as another training video called "Understanding Gender Identity and Expression: Moving Beyond the Binary," which DHS says aimed to "educate employees on... the experiences of transgender and nonbinary employees and clients"
Doug Seaton, an attorney for the conservative Upper Midwest Law Center, explained Norgren's opposition to that training.
"What Aaron objected to is he was being asked to affirm and essentially endorse views of human gender and sexuality that were antithetical to his Christian faith. That was the core problem he saw here," Seaton said.
Norgren filed a complaint, then after he didn't receive an interview for a promotion, he filed a lawsuit -- claiming religious discrimination and retaliation — based on his prior opposition to the training topics.
DHS claimed Norgen did not meet the job's qualifications.
A federal district judge initially dismissed the lawsuit, but a court of appeals revived it and ruled Norgren made enough of a case regarding retaliation that it could proceed. Before a trial or judgment occurred — the state agreed to settle, paying a total of $15,000, which Norgen and his attorney consider a victory.
"It's a good outcome for him. And it's a good outcome for Minnesotans. Because we now have the state on notice that they can't simply cavalierly override objections that employees have raised to what they believe are anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-American, so-called training imposed on them unrelated to their jobs," Seaton said.
But attorney Christy Hall from the nonprofit Gender Justice says the dollar figure on the settlement is an insignificant amount.
"It's going to be less expensive for the state to settle the claim than it is for the state to litigate the claim," Hall said.
Hall said the most important takeaway to anyone who supports those types of training in the workplace is that the court of appeals found no First Amendment issues with the training material itself or making the training mandatory.
"There is certainly nothing in the resolution of this lawsuit or in the 8th circuit's decision from earlier that forbids the state from doing that or even discourages the state from doing that," Hall said.
Norgren is no longer a state employee.
The Department of Human Services did not provide a response or answer questions for this story.