Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 181. EMPLOYMENT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 181.933 (2026)

Notice Of Termination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Notice required.

An employee who has been involuntarily terminated may, within 15 working days following such termination, request in writing that the employer inform the employee of the reason for the termination. Within ten working days following receipt of such request, an employer shall inform the terminated employee in writing of the truthful reason for the termination.

Subd. 2.Defamation action prohibited.

No communication of the statement furnished by the employer to the employee under subdivision 1 may be made the subject of any action for libel, slander, or defamation by the employee against the employer.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Brown v. Diversified Distrib. Sys., LLC, 801 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. Diversified Distrib. Sys., LLC, 801 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2015). · cites it 14× “She also brought claims under two Minnesota employment statutes, Minn. Stat. § 181.933 and Minn. Stat. § 181.”
Exxon Mobil Corp., Whm Custom Servs., Inc., & Disa, Inc. v. Gilberto Rincones, 520 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2017). “See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 181.933 (2) (Westlaw through laws of April 28, 2017).”
Ganguli v. Univ. of Minnesota, 512 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “Did the University’s failure to inform Ganguli of the truthful reasons for her termination violate the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 181.933 (1992)? ANALYSIS Ganguli has appealed to this court by writ of certiorari pursuant to Minn.”
LeBaron v. Minnesota Bd. of Pub. Def., 499 N.W.2d 39 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “933 , no absolute privilege can flow from that statute to protect the employer from liability for defamation. We conclude, however, that Minn.”
Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chem. Co., 837 A.2d 759 (Conn. 2004). “except in the case of a bona fide occupational qualification or need, to . . . discharge from employment any individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual's race, color,…”
J.K. ex rel. Kaplan v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., 849 F. Supp. 2d 865 (D. Minnesota 2011). · cites it 2× “5 ("No action for libel or slander may be brought or maintained unless the party charged with such defamation has published, either orally or in writing, the defamatory statement to a person other than the person making the allegation of libel or slander.”
Sage Co. v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 480 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 181.933 (1988). Lecy alleged mental anguish and suffering, but denied she suffered any accompanying or resulting bodily injury.”
Emery v. Ne. Illinois Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp., 377 Ill. App. 3d 1013 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “2d at 886-87 , the legislature responded by severely restricting the tort by statute (see Minn. Stat. §181.933 (d) (1987) (no communication by employee of reasons given by employer in writing for termination may give rise to an action for libel, slander or defamation); see also…”
Muhonen v. Cingular Wireless Emp. Servs., LLC, 802 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (D. Minnesota 2011). · cites it 2× “But Muhonen has not asserted that she requested the reason for her termination in writing as Minn.Stat. § 181.933 requires. In a written submission for Muhonen’s unemployment application, Cingular stated Muhonen was fired for a Code of Conduct violation and creating a hostile…”
Thomas Nash v. Optomec, Inc., 849 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2017). “See Minn. Stat. § 181.933 , sub-div. 1. In its response, Optomec noted Nash’s performance was “satisfactory in terms of performing more menial tasks,” but ultimately explained he “unfortunately •[did] not possess the full breadth of skills required to successfully meet the…”
Emery v. Ne Ill. Reg'l Commuter Rr, 880 N.E.2d 1002 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “2d at 886-87 , the legislature responded by severely restricting the tort by statute (see Minn.Stat. § 181.933(d) (1987) (no communication by employee of reasons given by employer in writing for termination may give rise to an action for libel, slander or defamation); see also…”
Daniel Johnson v. Overnite Transp. Co., a Virginia Corp., 19 F.3d 392 (8th Cir. 1994). “We add only that the enactment of Minn. Stat. § 181.933 , which limits an employer’s liability for defamation claims in some circumstances, exhibits a policy inclination to narrow the defamation cause of action in the employment context.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 181.933(d) — 1 case
Emery v. Ne Ill. Reg'l Commuter Rr, 880 N.E.2d 1002 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “2d at 886-87 , the legislature responded by severely restricting the tort by statute (see Minn.Stat. § 181.933(d) (1987) (no communication by employee of reasons given by employer in writing for termination may give rise to an action for libel, slander or defamation); see also…”
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.