§
Subdivision 1.General prohibition.
No employer shall discriminate between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees at a rate less than the rate the employer pays to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any other factor other than sex. Provided, that an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of sections 181.66 to 181.71 shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of sections 181.66 to 181.71, reduce the wage rate of any employee.
§
Subd. 2.Employees involved in proceeding.
No employer shall discriminate against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because the employee has filed a complaint in a proceeding under sections 181.66 to 181.71, or has testified, or is about to testify, in any investigation or proceedings pursuant to sections 181.66 to 181.71 or in a criminal action pursuant to sections 181.66 to 181.71.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case:
Brekke v. City of Blackduck, 984 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Minnesota 1997).
Brekke v. City of Blackduck, 984 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Minnesota 1997).
· cites it 20× “In a related claim, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has practiced impermissible gender-based wage discrimination, in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 181.67. Further, the Plaintiff has instituted a claim under Title 42 U.”
Schiele v. Charles Vogel Mfg. Co., 787 F. Supp. 1541 (D. Minnesota 1992).
· cites it 10× “Based on the foregoing, Schiele asserts claims of hostile environment sexual harassment pursuant to Title VII, claims of sexual harassment and discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a claim of wage discrimination under Minn. Stat. § 181.67 , and state law claims of…”
Kovatovich v. K-Mart Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 975 (D. Minnesota 1999).
· cites it 6× “See, Minnesota Statutes Section 181.67. According to the Plaintiff, male pharmacists in the Defendant’s employ received more pay, for performing the same tasks, than the Plaintiff was paid.”
Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 92 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024).
“In fact, like the FEPA, none repeats the critical "discriminate" phrase in successive sentences, and each (like the FEPA) contains a catch-all provision that exempts pay differentials that did not result from intentional discrimination on the basis of sex.”
Kolstad v. Fairway Foods, Inc., 457 N.W.2d 728 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “§ 206 (d)(1); Minn.Stat. § 181.67, subd. 1 (1988). Proof of one of these systems rebuts Kolstad’s prima facie case, forcing her to show pretext.”
Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 740 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
“Like Title VII, the Minnesota Human Rights Act extends its protection beyond sex-based classes to other groups and prohibits discrimination in aspects of employment besides compensation.”
Yohannes v. Minnesota IT Servs. (D. Minnesota 2022).
· cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. § 181.67 , subd. 1. As argued by Defendants, Plaintiff did not allege any discrimination based on sex.”
Niksoft Sys. Corp. v. Jennifer Leise (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
“§ 206 (d)(1); Minn. Stat. § 181.67 (1). These four affirmative defenses to Leise’s EPA claim are embodied by Instruction LL in this case.”
Jessica Devin v. Schwan's Home (8th Cir. 2007).
“§ 206 , and the Minnesota Equal Pay Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.67 , but does not appeal the grant of summary judgment as to these claims.”
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.