# HR/LR Policy and Procedure #1379 Affirmative Action Officers *HR/LR Policy and Procedure #1379, Affirmative Action Officers* is a [[Minnesota]] policy document. Its title concerns officers for [[Affirmative action]].[^1] A Wikipedia article under the same title, retrieved on 26 October 2026, carries no section content.[^1] The sources assembled for this article do not supply the policy's text, issuing office, date of issue, revision history or enforcement record. They do not establish which administration or party issued, amended, maintained or failed to rescind it.[^1] They also do not show whether the policy carries out [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]], the statute at issue in the federal suit described below, or whether that suit names the policy.[^1][^2] ## Federal action against Minnesota's affirmative-action statute On 14 January 2026 the United States sued the State in [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]], No. 0:26-cv-00273, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is brought under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].[^2] The complaint cites [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] eight times. Those citations include subdivision 3(c), which requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^2] The complaint states what the United States alleges. The sources cited here record its filing and do not record a ruling on those allegations.[^2] The [[United States Department of Justice]] announced the filing the same day in Office of Public Affairs release No. 26-21. The release is titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*. Its title uses the United States' own term for the State's apparatus: "Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime".[^3] According to the release, Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^3] The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages ([[How Minnesota Got Here]], note 40) finds Minnesota the only U.S. state so described. This is the project's own finding, not an independently established fact.[^4] In federal law the term is applied to governments the United States opposes. The [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-338), for example, states a policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein".[^4] The suit was filed after the Supreme Court's decision in [[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]], 605 U.S. 303 (2025). In that case the Court held that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs". The Court also rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^5] ## Notes [^1]: Wikipedia contributors, *HR/LR Policy and Procedure #1379 Affirmative Action Officers* (retrieved 26 October 2026) — establishes the policy's title; the cached page carries no section content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR%2FLR_Policy_and_Procedure_%231379_Affirmative_Action_Officers [^2]: United States Department of Justice, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn. filed 14 January 2026) — establishes the filing date, docket, the Title VII basis, and the complaint's eight citations of Minn. Stat. § 43A.191, including subd. 3(c). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^3]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*, release No. 26-21 (14 January 2026) — establishes the release title and the Attorney General's certification of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^4]: United States Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 (1998) — establishes the statutory policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein"; cited by the project's catalogue (How Minnesota Got Here, note 40) for U.S.-government "regime" usage. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf [^5]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) — establishes the holding on Title VII disparate treatment and the rejection of the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf