Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 182. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 182.65 (2026)

Citation And Legislative Purpose

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Citation.

This chapter shall be known as the "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973."

Subd. 1a.Employee Right to Know Act.

Laws 1983, chapter 316, shall be known as the "Employee Right to Know Act of 1983."

Subd. 2.Legislative findings and purpose.

(a) The legislature finds that the burden on employers and employees of this state resulting from personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations is substantial; that the prevention of these injuries and illnesses is an important objective of the government of this state; that the greatest hope of attaining this objective lies in programs of research and education, and in the earnest cooperation of government, employers and employees; and that a program of regulation and enforcement is a necessary supplement to these more basic programs.

(b) The legislature declares it to be its purpose and policy through the exercise of its powers to assure so far as possible every worker in the state of Minnesota safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources by:

(1) authorizing the Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Council to advise, consult with or recommend on any matters relating to the Minnesota occupational safety and health plan to the commissioner of labor and industry and by authorizing the commissioner of labor and industry to promulgate and enforce mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to employers and employees in the state of Minnesota;

(2) encouraging employers and employees to increase their efforts to reduce the number of occupational safety and health hazards at their places of employment, and to stimulate employers and employees to institute new and to perfect existing programs for providing safe and healthful working conditions;

(3) providing that employers and employees have separate but dependent responsibilities and rights with respect to achieving safe and healthful working conditions;

(4) providing for research in the field of occupational safety and health; including the psychological factors involved, and by developing innovative methods, techniques, and approaches for dealing with occupational safety and health problems;

(5) exploring ways to discover latent diseases, establishing causal connections between diseases and work in environmental conditions, and conducting other research relating to health problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health standards present problems often different from those involved in occupational safety;

(6) utilizing advances already made by federal laws and regulations providing safe and healthful working conditions;

(7) providing criteria which will assure insofar as practicable that no employee will suffer diminished health, functional capacity, or life expectancy as a result of work experience;

(8) providing an effective enforcement program which shall include locating enforcement personnel in areas of the state with a higher incidence of workplace fatalities, injuries, and complaints and a prohibition against giving advance notice of an inspection and sanctions for any individual violating this prohibition;

(9) providing for appropriate reporting procedures with respect to occupational safety and health, which procedures will help achieve the objectives of this chapter and accurately describe the nature of the occupational safety and health problem;

(10) encouraging joint labor-management efforts to reduce injuries and diseases arising out of employment;

(11) providing consultation to employees and employers which will aid them in complying with their responsibilities under this chapter where such consultation does not interfere with the effective enforcement of this chapter; and

(12) providing for training programs to increase the number and competence of personnel engaged in the field of occupational safety and health.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1979–2015 · leading case: Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. §§ 182.65, subd. 2, and 182.653 (2002).”
Banovetz v. King, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (D. Minn. 1999). · cites it 6× “, and the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act (“MOSHA”), Minnesota Statutes Section 182.65 et seq., as well as under the precepts of Minnesota common law.”
Stenvik v. Constant, 502 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 182.65, subd. 2 (1988) (legislature declares its purpose to assure every worker in Minnesota safe and healthful working conditions).”
Davis v. Boise Cascade Corp., 288 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 2× “669 (1978), which provides: Any employee who believes that he has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person because such employee has exercised any right authorized under the provisions of sections 182.65 to 182.674, may, within 30 days after such alleged…”
Colenburg v. Starcon Int'l, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 2d 947 (D. Minn. 2009). · cites it 2× “Colenburg claims, in requesting the laminated Process Safety Manual, that he was reporting a violation of the Employee Right to Know Act, Minn.Stat. § 182.65 et seq., but he does not specify how he believed that statute was violated.”
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., 544 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). “MOSHA provides: Any employee believed to have been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person because such employee has exercised any right authorized under the provisions of sections 182.65 to 182.674 may, within 30 days after such alleged discrimination…”
Zorgdrager v. State Wide Sales, Inc., 489 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “The trial court found that these criteria were satisfied and, accordingly, instructed the jury that violation of a regulatory duty is negligence.”
Brevik v. Kite Painting, Inc., 416 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 1987). “669 did not afford plaintiff a cause of action'for retaliatory discharge where he had not “exercised any right authorized under the provisions of sections 182.65 to 182.674.” Davis, 288 N.”
Brevik v. Kite Painting, Inc., 404 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “By his own admission he never discussed nor filed charges with the Department of Labor and Industry; thus he was not discharged because he had ‘exercised any right authorized under the provisions of sections 182.65 to 182.67V” Id. at 684 (emphasis added).”
Ken B. Peterson, Comm'r of the Minnesota Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. A13-2378, A14-467 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2014). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 182.65 , subd. 2 (2012). That statement indicates that the act is intended to, among other things, promote “the earnest cooperation of government, employers and employees,” id.”
Ken Peterson, Comm'r, Minnesota Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., Relator., No. A15-540 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2015). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 182.65 (2014). This court will affirm an administrative agency’s decision unless its findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or (b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or…”
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.