Statute of limitations for actions under the Minnesota Human Rights Act amended.
Summary
HF 2855 amends the Minnesota Human Rights Act’s filing deadline for discrimination claims. Under current law in the bill text, a claim of an unfair discriminatory practice must be brought within one year; the bill changes that period to ten years for filing a civil action, filing with a local commission, or filing a charge with the commissioner. The bill also updates related language throughout the section so the new ten-year period applies consistently.
The bill preserves and clarifies tolling rules that pause the limitations period while the parties are voluntarily engaged in dispute resolution, such as arbitration, conciliation, mediation, grievance procedures, or certain school board processes. It also keeps the suspension tied to the period during which a civil action cannot be brought under another section of the Human Rights Act. A respondent who participates in a dispute-resolution process must notify the department and the charging party of the start and end dates; if they fail to do so, they may lose the ability to assert a statute-of-limitations defense until the extended period has run.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would substantially lengthen the time available to bring discrimination claims under Minnesota law, expanding potential liability exposure for employers, schools, housing providers, and other covered respondents under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. It would also require parties engaged in pre-charge or pre-suit dispute resolution to continue providing notice of participation and termination dates, with the consequences for failing to notify tied to the new ten-year limitations period. The amendment would change Minnesota Statutes section 363A.28, subdivision 3, and related cross-referenced timing rules.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded debate, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process provided. Based on the bill’s substance, it appears to be a claimant-friendly measure intended to give more time to pursue discrimination remedies and to account for lengthy informal resolution efforts. Because no votes or testimony are included, overall sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s plain purpose.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the dramatic extension of the filing deadline from one year to ten years, which would be viewed by supporters as improving access to justice for discrimination victims and by opponents as increasing uncertainty and exposure to stale claims. Another likely issue is the continued tolling of the limitations period during mediation, arbitration, grievance procedures, and similar processes, along with the penalty that bars a limitations defense if respondents fail to give the required notice. No specific stakeholder positions are provided in the record, but the affected parties would include complainants, employers, educational institutions, and other entities subject to the Minnesota Human Rights Act.