It is an unfair discriminatory practice for any individual who participated in the alleged discrimination as a perpetrator, employer, labor organization, employment agency, public accommodation, public service, educational institution, or owner, lessor, lessee, sublessee, assignee or managing agent of any real property, or any real estate broker, real estate salesperson, or employee or agent thereof to intentionally engage in any reprisal against any person because that person:
(1) opposed a practice forbidden under this chapter or has filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter; or
(2) associated with a person or group of persons who are disabled or who are of different race, color, creed, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or national origin.
A reprisal includes, but is not limited to, any form of intimidation, retaliation, or harassment. It is a reprisal for an employer to do any of the following with respect to an individual because that individual has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1) or (2): refuse to hire the individual; depart from any customary employment practice; transfer or assign the individual to a lesser position in terms of wages, hours, job classification, job security, or other employment status; or inform another employer that the individual has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1) or (2).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
83
cases (
31 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case:
Bahr v. Capella Univ., 788 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 2010).
Bahr v. Capella Univ., 788 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 27× “Minn.Stat. § 363A.15 (emphasis added). Bahr alleges that Capella engaged in reprisal under the MHRA in the form of retaliation.”
Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 758 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “14; reprisals, Minn. Stat. § 363A.15; credit discrimination, Minn.”
Gagliardi v. Ortho-Midwest, Inc., 733 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “II Gagliardi contends that the district court also erred by granting summary judgment on her retaliation claim. We disagree. The Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits retaliation by an employer against an employee who has filed a complaint about an unfair, discriminatory practice.”
Quinn v. St. Louis Cnty., 653 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2011).
“See Minn. Stat. § 363A.15. 3 In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the MHRA, 4 an employee must show that (1) she engaged in protected conduct, (2) she suffered a materially adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection exists between the…”
Mandy Liles v. C.S. McCrossan, Inc., 851 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2017).
“opposed a practice forbidden under this chapter or has filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.”
Harnan v. Univ. of St. Thomas, 776 F. Supp. 2d 938 (D. Minnesota 2011).
· cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 363A.15. Reprisal includes any form of intimidation, retaliation, or harassment.”
Pye v. Nu Aire, Inc., 641 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2011).
“§§ 2000e-2000e-17, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.15 (“MHRA”). 2 We affirm with respect to the discrimination and hostile work environment claims, and reverse and remand with respect to the retaliation claims.”
McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., 925 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2019).
· cites it 2× “03, subd. 12. McBee's other claims included unlawful discharge in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, see Minn.”
Moore v. City of New Brighton, 932 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “In this case, however, where all of the employer's allegedly retaliatory behavior might, as a matter of fact, be construed as a series of related decisions tied to the same triggering, statutorily-protected conduct, we believe that the proper approach at summary judgment is to…”
Larry Johnson v. Schulte Hosp. Grp., Inc., 66 F.4th 1110 (8th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “The MHRA prohibits a place of public accommodation from “intentionally engag[ing] in any reprisal against any person because that person .”
Guimaraes v. SuperValu, Inc., 674 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2012).
“Similarly, the MHRA makes it “an unfair discriminatory practice for any individual .”
Becker v. Jostens, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (D. Minnesota 2016).
· cites it 4× “§ 2000e-3(a); Minn. Stat. § 363A.15; see also Hunt v. Neb.”
— Minn. Stat. § 363A.15(1) — 13 cases
Bahr v. Capella Univ., 788 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 2010).
“Minn.Stat. § 363A.15 (emphasis added). Bahr alleges that Capella engaged in reprisal under the MHRA in the form of retaliation.”
Mandy Liles v. C.S. McCrossan, Inc., 851 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2017).
“opposed a practice forbidden under this chapter or has filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.”
Larry Johnson v. Schulte Hosp. Grp., Inc., 66 F.4th 1110 (8th Cir. 2023).
“The MHRA prohibits a place of public accommodation from “intentionally engag[ing] in any reprisal against any person because that person .”
— Minn. Stat. § 363A.15(a) — 1 case
Becker v. Jostens, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (D. Minnesota 2016).
“§ 2000e-3(a); Minn. Stat. § 363A.15; see also Hunt v. Neb.”
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.