§
Subdivision 1.Complaints alleging discriminatory acts; private actions.
Any employee believed to have been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person because the employee has exercised any right authorized under the provisions of sections 182.65 to 182.674, may, within 30 days after the alleged discrimination occurs, file a complaint with the commissioner alleging the discriminatory act. Upon receipt of the complaint, the commissioner shall cause an investigation to be made as the commissioner deems appropriate. If upon such investigation the commissioner determines that a discriminatory act was committed against an employee, the commissioner shall refer the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing before an administrative law judge pursuant to the provisions of chapter 14. Communications between discrimination complainants and attorneys representing the commissioner are privileged as would be communications between an attorney and a client. For purposes of this section, the commissioner shall file with the administrative law judge and serve upon the respondent, by registered or certified mail, a complaint and written notice of hearing. The respondent shall file with the administrative law judge and serve upon the commissioner, by registered or certified mail, an answer within 20 days after service of the complaint. In all cases where the administrative law judge finds that an employee has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person because the employee has exercised any right authorized under sections 182.65 to 182.674, the administrative law judge may order payment to the employee of back pay and compensatory damages. The administrative law judge may also order rehiring of the employee; reinstatement of the employee's former position, fringe benefits, and seniority rights; and other appropriate relief. In addition, the administrative law judge may order payment to the commissioner or to the employee of costs, disbursements, witness fees, and attorney fees. Interest shall accrue on, and be added to, the unpaid balance of an administrative law judge's order from the date the order is signed by the administrative law judge until it is paid, at the annual rate provided in section 549.09, subdivision 1, paragraph (c). An employee may bring a private action in the district court for relief under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Abraham v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 10× “935(a), and MOSHA, Minn.Stat. § 182.669, subd. 1, may be pursued concurrently in one action.”
Brevik v. Kite Painting, Inc., 416 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 24× “The district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Minn.Stat. § 182.669 (1984) did not authorize a private cause of action for retaliatory discharge.”
Darrel Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp., 852 N.W.2d 669 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 4× “935 (2012), and the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act, Minn. Stat. § 182.669 , subd. 1 (2012), is “a cause of action at law with a constitutional right to jury trial.”
Burt v. Rackner, Inc., 902 N.W.2d 448 (Minn. 2017).
· cites it 2× “2 (2016) (providing that an “employer shall not discharge an employee” for specified test results under the statutes governing drug and alcohol testing and that an employer may be liable “in a civil action”); Minn. Stat. § 182.669 , subd. 1 (2016) (providing that an “employee…”
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., 544 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “At trial, Cox contended that Crown CoCo fired her because she reported the company’s possible violation of the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act, Minn. Stat. § 182.669 (1992) (MOSHA). She argued that such retaliation violated both MO-SHA and the Minnesota…”
Davis v. Boise Cascade Corp., 288 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1979).
· cites it 2× “The only section of the act which even arguably authorizes an action for wrongful discharge is § 182.669 (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…”
Abraham v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 622 N.W.2d 121 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Lennander and Abraham sued the county, alleging that their discharges violated the anti-reprisal provisions in MOSHA, Minn.Stat. § 182.669 (1996), the Whistle-blower Act, Minn.”
Brevik v. Kite Painting, Inc., 404 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 22× “Appellants then filed suit in Ramsey County District Court, claiming a private cause of action under Minn.Stat. § 182.669 (1984). The trial court ordered summary judgment for respondent.”
Schrammen v. ConAgra Foods Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 1323 (D. Me. 2018).
“932 (1) ; Minn. Stat. § 182.669 . Schrammen was placed on extended probation, was temporarily suspended and, ultimately, he was fired by ConAgra.”
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.