What civil settlements were reached in the Justine Ruszczyk case and how were they justified?
Executive summary
The City of Minneapolis agreed to a $20 million civil settlement with the family of Justine Ruszczyk Damond in May 2019, of which $18 million went directly to the family and $2 million was designated for a community “Safe Communities” fund, and the deal was reached through private mediation and approved by a judge [1] [2] [3]. City officials, the family’s attorney and commentators framed the payout as both compensation and a “transformational” marker meant to spur police reform, while the settlement also reflected practical considerations about litigation risk and municipal liability funding [4] [1] [5].
1. The headline terms: $20 million total, $18M to family, $2M to community fund
The announced settlement totaled $20 million, with city leaders stating the family would keep $18 million and the remaining $2 million would be donated to the Minneapolis Foundation’s Fund for Safe Communities as part of the agreement [2] [5] [3]. Media outlets uniformly reported the $20 million figure and the split between direct payments and the philanthropic component when the mayor announced the settlement on May 3, 2019 [6] [4] [1].
2. How the money was allocated among relatives and counsel
Court documents and reporting show the distribution to individual family members was specified and later approved: roughly $5 million to Justine’s father, about $5.7 million to her brother, $1 million to her fiancé Donald Damond, with additional sums allocated to other relatives and attorneys as set out in the court approval [7] [8]. A Hennepin County judge signed off on the distribution after the parties reached the mediated deal [7] [8].
3. Who paid: the city’s self-insurance fund and municipal precedent
Officials said the settlement would be paid from the city’s self-insurance fund rather than by a special appropriation, a detail emphasized in contemporaneous reporting [4] [5]. Local outlets noted the payout was the largest misconduct or police-related settlement in the city’s—and in some accounts the state’s—history, signaling both financial and political heft for Minneapolis [2] [9].
4. Legal posture and pathway: private mediation after a high-profile trial
The settlement followed private mediation and came days after a jury convicted former officer Mohamed Noor of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, a sequence city and family lawyers acknowledged but framed differently as to causation [1] [4]. The family had originally sought more than $50 million in their lawsuit alleging civil rights violations, and mediators and counsel negotiated the lower agreed figure [4].
5. Justifications offered by the family and city — compensation and reform
Family attorney Bob Bennett described the $20 million as “transformational” and a marker to push institutional change in the Minneapolis Police Department, language echoed by Mayor Jacob Frey and city council leaders who said the settlement should drive reforms and investments to prevent future tragedies [1] [5]. Mayor Frey and council president Lisa Bender framed the payout not as a victory but as a civic step toward accountability and systemic change [2] [5].
6. The $2 million pledge: intended community impact
The family agreed that $2 million would go to the Minneapolis Foundation’s Safe Communities initiative to address gun violence and community safety work—an element presented by the family as reflecting Justine’s values and by city officials as an investment in prevention and community-led solutions [3] [8].
7. Timing, optics and dissenting lines of analysis
While city leaders and the Ruszczyk family stressed reform and restitution, reporting acknowledged the settlement’s timing — immediately after Noor’s conviction — raised questions about whether criminal outcomes shortened negotiations and about whether large monetary settlements substitute for structural accountability; mayoral and council statements attempted to counter suggestions the deal was merely damage control [4] [5] [10]. Some commentary underscored that settlements are often pragmatic municipal decisions to resolve litigation exposure rather than admissions of broader institutional culpability, a nuance reflected across reporting [10].
8. Judicial approval and finality
A Hennepin County judge later approved the settlement and the specified distribution to family members and designated charity, concluding the civil case brought by the Ruszczyk family and closing the chapter on the city’s civil liability while leaving criminal proceedings and other reforms to proceed separately [7] [8].