§Subdivision 1.Utilization; benefit or services.
It is an unfair discriminatory practice to discriminate in any manner in the full utilization of or benefit from any educational institution, or the services rendered thereby to any person because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, age, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, or disability, or to fail to ensure physical and program access for disabled persons. For purposes of this subdivision, program access includes but is not limited to providing taped texts, interpreters or other methods of making orally delivered materials available, readers in libraries, adapted classroom equipment, and similar auxiliary aids or services. Program access does not include providing attendants, individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices or services of a personal nature.
§Subd. 2.Exclude, expel, or selection.
It is an unfair discriminatory practice to exclude, expel, or otherwise discriminate against a person seeking admission as a student, or a person enrolled as a student because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, age, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, or disability.
§Subd. 3.Admission form or inquiry.
It is an unfair discriminatory practice to make or use a written or oral inquiry, or form of application for admission that elicits or attempts to elicit information, or to make or keep a record, concerning the creed, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability of a person seeking admission, except as permitted by rules of the department.
§Subd. 4.Purpose for information and record.
It is an unfair discriminatory practice to make or use a written or oral inquiry or form of application that elicits or attempts to elicit information, or to keep a record concerning the race, color, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or marital status of a person seeking admission, unless the information is collected for purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of recruitment, admissions, and other educational policies, and is maintained separately from the application.
Notes of Decisions
Mumid v. Abraham Lincoln High Sch., 618 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 2000d, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn.Stat. § 363A.13. The district court granted summary judgment for the Institute and the District on all counts.”
Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 758 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “12; educational institutions, Minn.Stat. § 363A.13; aiding, abetting and obstructing related to unfair employment practices, Minn.”
Mark Randall v. Healtheast/St. John�s Hosp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “08 and the lawsuit was not brought within the context of an employer-employee relationship; (2) appellant cannot state a claim of race discrimination in education under Minn. Stat. § 363A.13 because respondent is not an educational institution nor an agent of an educational…”
B.S. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623 (D. Minnesota 2021).
· cites it 4× “) Plaintiff brought this action, asserting six counts, three of which are relevant to the pending motions: (Count One) Race Discrimination (as to the District) in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act – Minn. Stat. § 363A.13 (“MHRA”); (Count Five) Equal Protection (as to…”
J.H. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623 (D. Minnesota 2021).
· cites it 4× “§ 1983 ; (3) Race Discrimination (as to the District) under the Minnesota Human Rights Act – Minn. Stat. § 363A.13 (“MHRA”); (4) Battery (as to Cook and the District); (5) Negligent Supervision (as to the District); and (6) Negligent Retention (as to the District).”
Doe v. Blake Sch., 310 F. Supp. 3d 969 (2018).
“" Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 1. The parties agree that "[t]he MHRA is typically construed in accordance with federal precedent concerning analogous federal statutes.”
Preeti Kaur Rajpal v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 2 (2014). Because these statutes contain similar language and are directed toward a similar purpose, we will interpret and apply together the claims arising from the Rehabilitation Act and the MHRA.”
J.H. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623 (D. Minnesota 2021).
· cites it 2× “§ 1983 against Cook; (3) a claim of race discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn. Stat § 363A.13 against the School District; (4) a common law claim of Battery against the School District and Cook; (5) a common law claim of Negligent…”
T.B. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 112 (D. Minnesota 2022).
· cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 1. “The MHRA is typically construed in accordance with federal precedent concerning analogous federal statutes.”
T.B. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 112 (D. Minnesota 2022).
· cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 1. “The MHRA is typically construed in accordance with federal precedent concerning analogous federal statutes.”
Op. Atty. Gen. 1035 (Minn. Att'y Gen. 2025).
· cites it 2× “]” Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 1. The MHRA specifically defines “gender identity” to mean “a person’s inherent sense of being a man, woman, both, or neither.”
Verrett v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 625 (D. Minnesota 2019).
“Moreover, § 363A.13, subdiv. 1 of the 3 The parties do not object to the court applying Title VI to plaintiffs’ St.”
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.