join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 2

Employer's Anti-Discrimination Complaint Process May Toll the Statute of Limitations Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act

Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in Peterson v. City of Minneapolis, ruled that a complaint process in an employer’s anti-discrimination policy may toll the statute of limitations under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). At issue was a section of the MHRA stating that the Act’s one-year statute of limitations is “suspended during the time period a potential charging party and respondent are voluntarily engaged in a dispute resolution process involving a claim of unlawful discrimination under this chapter.” Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3. The court of appeals held that the phrase “voluntarily engaged in a dispute resolution process” may include the process of investigating an employee’s internal complaint of discrimination under an employer’s anti-discrimination policy. This ruling, if not overturned on appeal, significantly expands the scope of what most employers would view as a proper tolling of the statute of limitations.

Legal Alert: Minnesota Court Upholds Principle that Married Employees May Lawfully Sleep with the Enemy

Executive Summary: Your friends may refuse to hang out with you because of your spouse, but in Minnesota, your employer generally cannot. On May 20, 2013, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued the first Minnesota appellate decision addressing marital discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) since 2011, Aase v. Wapiti Meadows Community Techs. & Servs., Inc.
    SORT ARTICLES
  • No Subtopics.