Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 363A. HUMAN RIGHTS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 363A.04 (2026)

Construction And Exclusivity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The provisions of this chapter shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purposes thereof. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to repeal any of the provisions of the civil rights law or of any other law of this state relating to discrimination because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, gender identity, age, disability, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, sexual orientation, or familial status; but, as to acts declared unfair by sections 363A.08 to 363A.19, and 363A.28, subdivision 10, the administrative procedure herein provided shall, while pending, be exclusive. The rights and remedies herein provided are in addition to, and shall not preclude, those available at law or in equity.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Daniel v. City of Minneapolis, 923 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis, 923 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 8× “" Minn. Stat. § 363A.04. We previously considered the relationship between these two exclusivity provisions in Karst v.”
Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 781 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 16× “" Minn.Stat. § 363A.04 (2008); *863 see also Cummings v.”
Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Grp., Inc., 751 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 4× “1997); see also Minn.Stat. § 363A.04 (2006) ("The provisions of [the MHRA] shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purposes thereof.”
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 4× “The MHRA is a remedial act that should be “construed liberally,” Minn.Stat. § 363A.04, in order to accomplish its purpose of “securing] for persons in this state, freedom from discrimination,” Minn.”
Nina Wilson v. Mortg. Resource Ctr., Inc., Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 888 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 4× “In Krueger, we concluded that the statute’s construction directive did not justify going beyond the unambiguous terms of the statute to adopt “ ‘a meaning not But the dissent does not cite to any cases that apply materiality consistently with the exclusive statutory definition…”
Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 758 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “1997) (citing earlier version of statute); see Minn.Stat. § 363A.04 (containing current version of section mandating liberal construction of the MHRA).”
Kenneth Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic Ambulance, 102 F.4th 894 (8th Cir. 2024). ““The MHRA is a remedial act that should be ‘construed liberally,’ Minn.Stat. § 363A.04, in order to accomplish its purpose of ‘secur[ing] for persons in this state, freedom from discrimination,’ Minn.”
STRIB IV, LLC fka Richard T. Burke I, LLC, Relator v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 886 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 2× “Despite the statute’s directive that it be “construed liberally,” Minn.Stat. § 363A.04 (2014), we affirmed the dismissal of the individual plaintiffs claim, distinguishing between the natural person and the legal entity.”
Bahr v. Capella Univ., 765 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. § 363A.04. Respondent argues that this court should not look to federal cases for guidance.”
Anita M. Kempf v. Hennepin Cnty., 987 F.3d 1192 (8th Cir. 2021). “The County, on the other hand, argues that Kempf’s MWA claims are barred by an exclusivity provision in the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn. Stat. § 363A.04. While the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently suggested that the MHRA’s exclusivity provision may not apply…”
Doe v. Lutheran High Sch. of Greater Minneapolis, 702 N.W.2d 322 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “2d at 422 ; see also Minn.Stat. § 363A.04 (2004) (“The provisions of [the MHRA] shall be construed liberally for accomplishment of the purposes thereof.”
Edwards v. Hopkins Plaza Ltd. P'ship, 783 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 363A.04 (2008). I. Owners and managing agents who “refuse to sell, rent, or lease or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person .”
Show all 39 citing cases →
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.