Minnesota Human Rights Act

Minnesota Human Rights Act
Name	Minnesota Human Rights Act
Short title	Minnesota Human Rights Act
Enacted by	Minnesota Legislature
Date enacted	1967
Status	amended

Minnesota Human Rights Act is the principal civil rights statute enacted by the Minnesota Legislature to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, housing, employment, and education. The Act established administrative enforcement through the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and created private cause of action remedies paralleling decisions in federal venues such as the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Its scope and interpretation have been shaped by litigation involving parties including the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and state actors like the Minnesota Attorney General.

Background and enactment

The Act was passed during the era of civil rights reform influenced by national developments such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and rulings from the Supreme Court of the United States. Local movements in cities including Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Duluth, and Rochester, Minnesota pushed for statewide protections parallel to statutes in New York (state), California, and Massachusetts. Key legislative figures included members of the Minnesota Senate and the Minnesota House of Representatives, and advocacy groups such as the Minnesota Council on Human Relations and faith-based organizations contributed testimony. The statute was designed to integrate with existing decisions from the Eighth Circuit and to respond to changes in employment patterns influenced by corporations like 3M and institutions like the University of Minnesota.

Scope and protected classes

The Act covers discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, credit, and municipal services, defining a broad set of protected characteristics. Initially focused on race and color, legislative amendments and administrative interpretation extended protections to include sex discrimination, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, national origin, age, marital status, familial status, status with regard to public assistance, and creed where relevant. Case law and advocacy led to recognition of protections for veterans associated with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and for employees of institutions such as Mayo Clinic and Target Corporation. Intersectional claims have cited precedents involving litigants represented by organizations like Legal Aid and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Prohibited practices and enforcement

The statute bars practices including discriminatory hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, advertising, negotiating, and workplace harassment, as well as discriminatory real estate transactions, eviction, lending, and denial of services in places like restaurants, hotels, and hospitals. Remedies include administrative complaints filed with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, conciliation, civil lawsuits in state courts such as the Minnesota Court of Appeals, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and penalties consistent with precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States. Enforcement actions have involved employers ranging from small businesses to multinational corporations like General Mills and UnitedHealth Group, and institutions such as the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system.

Minnesota Department of Human Rights

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights administers investigations, conciliation, compliance reviews, and public education. The agency has collaborated with municipal human rights commissions in Minneapolis Civil Rights Department, Saint Paul Department of Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity, and county offices in Hennepin County and Ramsey County. Leadership appointments by the Governor of Minnesota and oversight interacting with the Minnesota Legislature have shaped policy priorities, including enforcement protocols responding to complaints involving landlords, employers, and educational institutions such as Carleton College and Macalester College.

Notable lawsuits and case law

Important cases interpreting the Act have been decided in Minnesota state courts and the federal judiciary, with involvement from the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and trial courts in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Litigation has addressed issues like sexual harassment in workplaces at companies such as Best Buy, disability accommodations in healthcare settings involving Allina Health, and religious accommodations in schools like St. Olaf College. Prominent attorneys and organizations including the ACLU of Minnesota and private firms have litigated precedent-setting matters that influenced rulings in cases citing statutory provisions similar to those in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Americans with Disabilities Act interpretations.

Amendments and legislative history

Since enactment, the statute has been amended numerous times through sessions of the Minnesota Legislature, incorporating protections for sexual orientation and gender identity and aligning with federal statutes such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Fair Housing Act. Legislative sponsors, committees including the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, and advocacy coalitions shaped reforms. Debates in the Minnesota State Capitol and input from stakeholders like labor unions affiliated with the AFL–CIO and business groups such as the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce influenced the content and timing of amendments.

Impact and criticism

Supporters cite reduced discrimination in employment and housing outcomes measured in administrative enforcement statistics and case law, with impacts in urban areas like Minneapolis–Saint Paul and on institutions such as University of Minnesota Medical Center. Critics argue the Act imposes regulatory burdens on employers, landlords, and faith-based organizations including some congregations and private schools, and litigants have contested scope and remedy provisions in state and federal courts. Debates involve organizations such as the Institute for Justice and policy think tanks like the Cato Institute and Brookings Institution, as well as advocacy groups including GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and the Minnesota Family Council.

Category:Minnesota law