Purpose

This bill changes how long you have to file a claim of unfair discriminatory practice under Minnesota's Human Rights Act. It also adds rules about tolling (pausing) that time while you’re in certain dispute-resolution processes and penalties if those procedures aren’t properly disclosed.

Main provisions

• Filing deadline

  • A claim of unfair discriminatory practice must be filed within a specific time frame: within one year after ten years from when the discrimination occurred.
  • You can file the claim in one of three ways:
  • as a civil action under Minnesota Statutes section 363A.33 subdivision 1,
  • by filing a charge with a local human rights commission under section 363A.07 subdivision 3, or
  • by filing a charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (the commissioner).

• Tolling (time pauses)

  • The one-year/ten-year filing period is paused while the parties voluntarily participate in a dispute-resolution process about the discrimination. This includes arbitration, conciliation, mediation, or grievance procedures under a collective bargaining agreement or a school board sexual harassment or sexual violence policy.
  • The pause lasts for the duration of that dispute-resolution process.

• Notification requirement

  • If a respondent participates in such a process, they must notify the department and the charging party in writing about:
  • the participation, the start date, and the end date of the process.
  • If the respondent fails to provide this notification, they cannot later argue that the statute of limitations has run, unless the total time (including the pause) has passed.

• Additional tolling reference

  • The running of the period is also paused during the time period defined in section 363A.331 subdivision 2, when a civil action may not be brought.

Significance and potential effects

• The bill extends or redefines how long claims can be filed and ties that period to a ten-year reference point, with a mechanism to pause the clock during dispute-resolution steps.
• It adds a concrete notification duty for respondents, creating consequences if they don’t report their participation in dispute-resolution activities.
• It clarifies that time can be paused during certain times when a civil action cannot be filed, potentially delaying enforcement in those windows.
• Overall, it aims to give more time for disputes to be resolved outside court, while ensuring parties adhere to notice requirements and that the limitations clock is properly managed.

Practical considerations

• Individuals considering a discrimination claim should be aware of the unusual deadline structure (ten-year reference point plus a one-year window) and the tolling rules.
• Employers and organizations engaging in dispute-resolution processes should prepare to notify the department and charging party about participation dates to avoid losing the ability to raise statute-of-limitations defenses.

Relevant Terms

• Minnesota Human Rights Act
• unfair discriminatory practice
• statute of limitations
• civil action
• local commission
• commissioner (Minnesota Department of Human Rights)
• charge
• dispute resolution process
• arbitration
• conciliation
• mediation
• grievance procedures
• collective bargaining agreement
• school board sexual harassment policy
• sexual violence policy
• notification
• suspension
• 363A.28 subdivision 3
• 363A.33 subdivision 1
• 363A.07 subdivision 3
• 363A.331 subdivision 2