§
Subdivision 1.Right to review; frequency.
Upon written request by an employee, the employer shall provide the employee with an opportunity to review the employee's personnel record. An employer is not required to provide an employee with an opportunity to review the employee's personnel record if the employee has reviewed the personnel record during the previous six months; except that, upon separation from employment, an employee may review the employee's personnel record once each year after separation for as long as the personnel record is maintained.
§
Subd. 2.Time; location; condition; copy.
(a) The employer shall comply with a written request pursuant to subdivision 1 no later than seven working days after receipt of the request if the personnel record is located in this state, or no later than 14 working days after receipt of the request if the personnel record is located outside this state.
(b) With respect to current employees, the personnel record or an accurate copy must be made available for review by the employee during the employer's normal hours of operation at the employee's place of employment or other reasonably nearby location, but need not be made available during the employee's working hours. The employer may require that the review be made in the presence of the employer or the employer's designee. After the review and upon the employee's written request, the employer shall provide a copy of the record to the employee.
(c) With respect to employees who are separated from employment, upon the employee's written request, the employer shall provide a copy of the personnel record to the employee. Providing a copy of the employee's personnel record to the employee satisfies the employer's responsibility to allow review as stated in subdivision 1.
(d) The employer may not charge a fee for the copy.
§
Subd. 3.Good faith.
The employer may deny the employee the right to review the employee's personnel record if the employee's request to review is not made in good faith. The burden of proof that the request to review is not made in good faith is on the employer.
§
Subd. 4.Employer defined.
For the purposes of this section, "employer" includes a person who has one or more employees.
Notes of Decisions
Benson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 561 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “82; (3) failure to provide personnel records and/or delete information in violation of Minn.Stat. §§ 181.961 and 181.962; (4) defamation; (5) intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (6) respondeat superior against Northwest including a claim for…”
Fiebelkorn v. Ikon Off. Solutions, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (D. Minnesota 2009).
· cites it 4× “Count VIII — Minn. Stat. § 181.961 Finally, Fiebelkorn asserts that IKON violated Minnesota Statutes Section 181.”
Lloyd v. in Home Health, Inc., 523 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “(b) No communication by an employer of information contained in an employee’s personnel record after the employee has exercised the employee’s right to review pursuant to section 181.961 may be made the subject of any common law civil action for libel, slander, or defamation…”
Rosen v. Transx Ltd., 816 F. Supp. 1364 (D. Minnesota 1993).
· cites it 2× “Second, Rosen contends that Transx failed to permit him to review his personnel file in violation of Minn. Stat. § 181.961 et seq. (“Count II”).”
In Re Crawford, 208 B.R. 924 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1994).
· cites it 2× “7; (Count III) The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991; (Count TV) a violation of the ADA; (Count V) an action for common law defamation; and (Count VI) an action for violation of Minn. Stat. § 181.961 , for Norwest’s failure…”
Burt v. Rackner, Inc., 882 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Appellant separately claimed that respondent unlawfully withheld appellant’s personnel record after he had "requested it, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.961 (2014). Appellant acknowledges that, because respondent has since provided him with a copy of his personnel record, that…”
Joseph v. Wal-Mart Corp. (D. Minnesota 2020).
· cites it 4× “2; and a Minnesota statute requiring employers to provide employees with copies of their personnel files, Minn. Stat. § 181.961 . Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19–31, 37–40 [ECF No.”
Todd Burt v. Rackner, Inc. d/b/a Bunny�s Bar & Grill (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “2003) (reviewing dismissal 1 Appellant separately claimed that respondent unlawfully withheld appellant’s personnel record after he had requested it, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 181.961 (2014). Appellant acknowledges that, because respondent has since provided him with a copy…”
Kasso (D. Minnesota 2025).
· cites it 2× “See also Minn. Stat. § 181.961 (setting forth state-law statutory basis for personnel records review requests).”
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.