Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 363.11 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Renumbered 363A.04]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases, 1971–2002 · leading case: Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., 607 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2000).
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., 607 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2000). “DDS did not argue that the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA) compelled arbitration of this dispute and provided no evidence that the employment agreement involved interstate commerce, a threshold requirement under the FAA.”
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 1990). “The Minnesota Human Rights Act is to "be construed liberally for the accomplishment of [its] purposes," Minn.Stat. § 363.11 (1988), which include "secur[ing] for persons in this state, freedom from discrimination [i]n employment [and i]n housing.”
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 461 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 1990). “Kinney appealed the order denying it a new trial, while Wirig filed a notice of review of that part of the judgment denying her the defamation damages awarded her by special jury verdict.”
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., 552 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 1996). “Minn.Stat. § 363.11 (1994) provides as follows: The provisions of this chapter shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purposes thereof.”
Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., Inc., 551 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1996). “Paul Ramsey Medical Center to consider the question of whether, where the plaintiff has asserted a reprisal claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the exclusivity of remedies provision of that Act, Minn.Stat. § 363.11 (1994), operates as a bar to a retaliation claim…”
State Ex Rel. McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. 1985). “On the one hand, section 363.11 of the Human Rights Act, in its interpretation and application, directs that the provisions of the Act "shall be construed liberally for accomplishment of the purposes thereof," and section 363.”
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 448 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “Minn.Stat. § 363.11 (1986), the preemption section, provides in part: [A]s to acts declared unfair by sections 363.”
Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418 (Minn. 1997). “Minn.Stat. § 363.11 (1996). One of those purposes includes protecting Minnesota employees from sexual harassment.”
Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., 560 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). “Finally, the district court ruled that Minn.Stat. § 363.11, the MHRA’s exclusivity provision, prevented Sullivan from asserting a negligent supervision claim independent of the MHRA.”
United States Jaycees v. McClure, 305 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 1981). “It has also expressly required a broad construction of all provisions of the statute by order of Minn.Stat. § 363.11 (1980) which reads, in pertinent part: "The provisions of this chapter shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purposes thereof.”
Abraham v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002). “” Minn.Stat. § 363.11 (2000). 7 . While the county correctly points out that this provision failed to allow concurrent claims in Williams, we disagree that the provision therefore has no effect here.”
Wschola v. Snyder, 478 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Minn.Stat. § 363.11 (1986). Moreover, although a civil defendant's repose is important, it does not receive constitutional protection.”
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.