Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 363A.14 (2026)

Aiding And Abetting And Obstruction

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is an unfair discriminatory practice for any person:

(1) intentionally to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in any of the practices forbidden by this chapter;

(2) intentionally to attempt to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in any of the practices forbidden by this chapter;

(3) to intentionally obstruct or prevent any person from complying with the provisions of this chapter, or any order issued thereunder, or to resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with the commissioner or any of the commissioner's employees or representatives in the performance of duty under this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 6× “The Employees argue that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Zapolski could not be held individually liable under the aiding and abetting provision of the MHRA, Minn. Stat. § 363A.14. We agree with the court of appeals.”

McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679 F.3d 698 (8th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “MHRA Aiding and Abetting McDonald contends that the district court erred in granting defendants summary judgment on his claim that they violated Minn.Stat. § 363A.14 by aiding and abetting practices forbidden by the MHRA.”

Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc., 800 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “In this appeal from summary judgment dismissing appellant’s claims against respondents for aiding and abetting sexual harassment, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 363A.14 (2010), and declining to impose vicarious liability under the responsible-corporate-officer doctrine, appellant…”

Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 758 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “13; aiding, abetting and obstructing related to unfair employment practices, Minn.Stat. § 363A.14; reprisals, Minn. Stat.”

Griffin v. Sirva, Inc., 291 F. Supp. 3d 245 (E.D.N.Y 2018). “" (emphasis added) ); see also Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.14(2) (expressly separating out liability for "aid[ing], abet[ing], incit[ing], compel[ing], or coerc[ing]" from "attempt[ing] to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce" into two different subsections) ).”

Arens v. O'Reilly Auto., Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 805 (D. Minnesota 2012). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 363A.14. But Pocklington cannot have aided and abetted O’Reilly’s (alleged) violation of the statute, as the company’s liability stems from Pocklington’s own conduct-in other words, he would effectively be aiding and abetting himself.”

Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 817 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “Can respondent Brian Zapolski be held individually liable for aiding and abetting discrimination under Minn.Stat. § 363A.14? ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review After a bench trial, we give the district court’s findings great deference and will reverse “only if the result is clearly…”

A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “Minn. Stat. § 363A.14. “[A] person is liable for aiding and abetting a violation of the MHRA when that person knows that another person’s conduct constitutes a violation of the MHRA and ‘gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself.”

Lapushner v. Admedus Ltd. (D. Minnesota 2020). · cites it 2× “For example, Minn. Stat. § 363A.14 imposes individual liability “for any person .”

McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 819 F. Supp. 2d 881 (D. Minnesota 2011). · cites it 2× “” See Minn.Stat. § 363A.14(1) (2010). McDonald asserts that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Mayor “aided and abetted or [c]oerce[d] Councilmember Carter to [circumvent the [p]roeess.”

A23-0484 Andrea Anderson v. Aitkin Pharmacy Servs., LLC dba Thrifty White Pharmacy, George ... (2024). “1(a)(1); and (3) aiding and abetting, defined as “intentionally to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in any of the practices forbidden by [the MHRA],” Minn. Stat. § 363A.14(1). To the extent that Anderson’s arguments require this court to interpret the…”

— Minn. Stat. § 363A.14(1) — 5 cases

Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2013). “The Employees argue that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Zapolski could not be held individually liable under the aiding and abetting provision of the MHRA, Minn. Stat. § 363A.14. We agree with the court of appeals.”

McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679 F.3d 698 (8th Cir. 2012). “MHRA Aiding and Abetting McDonald contends that the district court erred in granting defendants summary judgment on his claim that they violated Minn.Stat. § 363A.14 by aiding and abetting practices forbidden by the MHRA.”

A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). “Minn. Stat. § 363A.14. “[A] person is liable for aiding and abetting a violation of the MHRA when that person knows that another person’s conduct constitutes a violation of the MHRA and ‘gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself.”

McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 819 F. Supp. 2d 881 (D. Minnesota 2011). “” See Minn.Stat. § 363A.14(1) (2010). McDonald asserts that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Mayor “aided and abetted or [c]oerce[d] Councilmember Carter to [circumvent the [p]roeess.”

— Minn. Stat. § 363A.14(2) — 1 case

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.