Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 363A. HUMAN RIGHTS

Minn. Stat. § 363A.17

Business Discrimination

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

It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person engaged in a trade or business or in the provision of a service:

(1) to refuse to do business with or provide a service to a woman based on her use of her current or former surname; or

(2) to impose, as a condition of doing business with or providing a service to a woman, that a woman use her current surname rather than a former surname; or

(3) to intentionally refuse to do business with, to refuse to contract with, or to discriminate in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract because of a person's race, national origin, color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability, unless the alleged refusal or discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit positive action plans.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. (2010) minn · cites it 148× “Pamela Krueger has brought a viable claim for discrimination under Minn.Stat. § 363A.17 (2008) and is entitled to proceed with that claim.”
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. (2008) minnctapp · cites it 126× “Minn.Stat. § 363A.17 (emphasis added). Several aspects of this analysis are not in dispute.”
Telescope Media Group v. Rebecca Lucero (2019) ca8 · cites it 2× “” They focus on Minn. Stat. § 363A.17(3), which forbids discrimination “unless the alleged refusal or discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose.”
Scott v. CSL Plasma, Inc. (2015) mnd · cites it 39× “” Minn. Stat. § 363A.17. Sexual orientation encompasses transgender , identity.”
Basim Sabri v. Whittier Alliance (2016) ca8 · cites it 2× “To challenge the new bylaw, appellants filed this § 1983 action alleging that the Whittier Alliance and the city of Minneapolis had adopted policies designed to deprive them of their rights under the First Amendment and Minn.”
STRIB IV, LLC fka Richard T. Burke I, LLC, Relator v. County of Hennepin (2016) minn · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 363A.17 (2014). But only the single-member LLC was a party to the contract.”
Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey (2017) mnd · cites it 3× “§ 363A.17(3). Commissioner Lindsey leads the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (“MDHR”) and is charged with interpreting and enforcing the MHRA’s substantive provisions.”
Shqeirat v. US AIRWAYS, GROUP INC. (2007) mnd · cites it 2× “1, and Minn. Stat. § 363A.17, are all preempted to the extent they arise out of U.”
Boldt v. Northern States Power Co. (2017) mnd · cites it 2× “Complaint, which asserts a claim for disability discrimination based on a perceived disability of alcoholism under Minn. Stat. § 363A.17. 1 Boldt argues that the Court’s July 18 Order erroneously concluded that Boldt’s MHRA claims are preempted.”
Metropolitan Transportation Network, Inc. v. Collaborative Student Transportation of Minnesota, ... (2024) minnctapp · cites it 2× “§ 1981 (2018); business discrimination based on 4 race and national origin in violation of Minn. Stat. § 363A.17(3) (2022); and restraint of trade in violation of Minn.”
JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related Appeal ... (2025) minn · cites it 15× “There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether seeking to ensure competitive fairness in an athletic competition satisfies the legitimate business purpose defense for sexual orientation and sex discrimination in business under Minn. Stat. § 363A.17 (2018) of the MHRA…”
A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ... (2024) minnctapp · cites it 14× “” Minn. Stat. § 363A.17, .17(3). Furthermore, it is unlawful for any person “intentionally to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in any of the practices forbidden by” the MHRA.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 363A.17(3) — 11 cases
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. (2010) minn “Pamela Krueger has brought a viable claim for discrimination under Minn.Stat. § 363A.17 (2008) and is entitled to proceed with that claim.”
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. (2008) minnctapp “Minn.Stat. § 363A.17 (emphasis added). Several aspects of this analysis are not in dispute.”
Telescope Media Group v. Rebecca Lucero (2019) ca8 “” They focus on Minn. Stat. § 363A.17(3), which forbids discrimination “unless the alleged refusal or discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose.”
Basim Sabri v. Whittier Alliance (2016) ca8 “To challenge the new bylaw, appellants filed this § 1983 action alleging that the Whittier Alliance and the city of Minneapolis had adopted policies designed to deprive them of their rights under the First Amendment and Minn.”
Scott v. CSL Plasma, Inc. (2015) mnd “” Minn. Stat. § 363A.17. Sexual orientation encompasses transgender , identity.”
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.