It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, company, corporation, association, or organization of any kind, doing business in this state, directly or through any agent or attorney, to induce, influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this state, or to change from any place in any state, territory, or country to any place in this state, to work in any branch of labor through or by means of knowingly false representations, whether spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, concerning the kind or character of such work, the compensation therefor, the sanitary conditions relating to or surrounding it, or failure to state in any advertisement, proposal, or contract for the employment that there is a strike or lockout at the place of the proposed employment, when in fact such strike or lockout then actually exists in such employment at such place. Any such unlawful acts shall be deemed a false advertisement or misrepresentation for the purposes of this section and section 181.65.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case:
Nichols v. State, 858 N.W.2d 773 (Minn. 2015).
Nichols v. State, 858 N.W.2d 773 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 43× “The issue presented by this case is whether the State of Minnesota may be sued in tort under Minn.Stat. §§ 181.64 and 181.65 (2014). Because we conclude that the Legislature did not plainly, clearly, and unmistakably waive sovereign immunity for claims brought under sections 181.”
Nichols v. State, Off. of the Sec'y, 842 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 23× “The district court reasoned that the legislature intended sections 181.64 and 181.65 to “include all people and every organization that people are capable of forming without limitation” and that the statutes “left no human-created institution untouched.”
Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (D. Minnesota 2014).
· cites it 5× “Minn.Stat. § 181.64 (Count II) In Count II of her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states a claim for violation of Minnesota Statutes § 181.”
Bd. of Regents of U of M v. Reid, 522 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. §§ 181.64 (unlawful to falsely induce person to enter employment) and 181.”
Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, 902 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. Minnesota 2012).
· cites it 13× “) In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts seven claims against Defendant: promissory estoppel (Count I); false representation in violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.64 (Count II); gender discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn.”
Brenny v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 813 N.W.2d 417 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “43 (2010); one count against both the board and appellant, alleging false statements as inducement to entering employment, a violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.64 (2010); and one count against only appellant, alleging tortious interference with contract.”
Chandramouli Vaidyanathan v. Seagate US LLC, 691 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 181.64 ; see § 181.65 (providing a right of action for recovery of damages sustained in consequence of violations of § 181.”
Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol, 9 N.W.3d 368 (Minn. 2024).
· cites it 13× “at 776 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 181.64 ). Because this language does not 4 In Nichols, we expressly declined to consider whether the State waived sovereign immunity for statutory tort claims under the Tort Claims Act because the parties did not address the application of the Tort…”
Eide v. Grey Fox Technical Servs. Corp., 329 F.3d 600 (8th Cir. 2003).
“Background Twenty-seven former employees of Cer-idian’s Technology Center initiated this action in Minnesota state court under the provisions of the Minn.Stat. § 181.64, alleging breach of contract and implied contract, promissory estoppel, and false statements as inducement to…”
Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, 82 F. Supp. 3d 871 (D. Minnesota 2014).
· cites it 31× “) She also alleges that the Embassy violated Minn.Stat. § 181.64 by fraudulently inducing her to enter employment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.