Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 363.08 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1967 c 897 s 29]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View, 518 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. 1994).
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View, 518 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. 1994). “We are asked to decide whether the defense of official immunity is available to police officers sued for racial discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 363.08, subd. 4(1) (1990), and if the defense is available, whether petitioners were properly denied…”
Reiff v. Interim Pers., Inc., 906 F. Supp. 1280 (D. Minnesota 1995). “In Count II of the Complaint, Reiff claims that Johnson and Wienandt aided and abetted discrimination against him in violation of both Minn.Stat. § 363.08, subd. 1(2) and subd.”
Escobar v. Swift & Co., 494 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (D. Minnesota 2007). “*1060 § 2000e — 2(a)(1); Minn.Stat. § 363.08. The courts of the Eighth Circuit have consistently analyzed sexual harassment claims under the MHRA as analogous to claims under Title VII.”
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 624, 533 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1995). “As a result, the Department filed a claim on behalf of Leemon against ISD alleging that certain provisions of the contract discriminated against Leemon, based solely on age, in violation of § 363.08, subd. 1(2) (1986) of the MHRA. The ALJ granted summary judgment for Leemon,…”
Helgerson v. Bridon Cordage, Inc., 518 N.W.2d 869 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “Appellant argues the district court only granted a partial summary judgment because the court’s memorandum did not address his second claim that respondent’s employment system unreasonably excluded him in violation of Minn.Stat. § 363.08, subd. l(2)(a). We disagree.”
State Ex Rel. Roberts v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 365 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Minn.Stat. § 363.08, subd. l(2)(a) (1984).”
Mark Randall v. Healtheast/St. John�s Hosp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). “Appellant provided no argument regarding employment discrimination under Minn. Stat. § 363.08 or discrimination in a place of public accommodation under Minn.”
Fergus v. Minnesota Off. of Higher Educ. (D. Minnesota 2022). “, and the other brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363.08 . In her Title VII claim, Fergus describes alleged violations of her First Amendment free-speech rights, Fifth Amendment due-process rights, and Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection rights.”
Racz v. Mayo Clinic (D. Minnesota 2023). “” Minn. Stat. § 363.08 subdiv. 5. “Although the MHRA uses the term ‘reprisal’ rather than ‘retaliation,’ MHRA claims are analyzed in the same fashion as claims under Title VII.”
State Ex Rel. Vanouse v. Henry, 154 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 1967). “Most significantly, a legislative intent that civil procedures should govern appears clearly indicated in § 363.08, subd. 3, of the act, authorizing proceedings de novo in the district court, by the provision that “[a]ll trials or hearings arising under this section shall be…”
Humphrey v. Shumaker, 524 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “*305 FACTS Jan Reed, a former employee of the Minnesota Historical Society, brought a pro se action in district court alleging that the Historical Society had discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 363.08…”
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.