Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 363A.25 (2026)

Exemption Based On Disability

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any program, service, facility, or privilege afforded to a person with a disability which is intended to habilitate, rehabilitate, or accommodate that person. It is a defense to a complaint or action brought under the employment provisions of this chapter that the person bringing the complaint or action has a disability which in the circumstances and even with reasonable accommodation, as defined in section 363A.08, subdivision 6, poses a serious threat to the health or safety of the disabled person or others. The burden of proving this defense is upon the respondent.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., 925 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., 925 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 4× “6, and whether her continued employment posed a serious threat to her health, see Minn. Stat. § 363A.25. McBee relied on the deposition testimony of Team's shift lead to argue that she could perform the essential functions of her position with reasonable accommodation.”

Johnsqn v. City of Blaine, 970 F. Supp. 2d 893 (D. Minnesota 2013). · cites it 2× “*909 § 12113 (b); Minn.Stat. § 363A.25; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.15 (b)(2).”

Thaleaha McBee v. Team Indus., Inc. (2025). “6; and (2) whether her continued employment posed a serious threat to her health or safety (a defense to a claim of disability discrimination by an employer under Minn. Stat. § 363A.25). McBee, 925 N.W.2d at 230– 33.”

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.