Nothing on this page is advice about your job, and no article can be. If you want your own facts looked at, a Minnesota employment attorney can do that — and several of the deadlines described on this site are short enough that waiting is itself a decision.
In this guide
Why this is the hardest thing to look up
An employee with one bad month often has four claims, and they do not go to the same place. A discrimination claim can start at an agency or in district court, at the employee’s choice. A wage claim can start at a different agency or in district court, also at the employee’s choice. An unemployment appeal cannot start in court at all and never gets a trial. A whistleblower claim has no agency route in its own statute. A workers’ compensation retaliation claim is expressly kept out of the court that hears workers’ compensation cases.
Nothing about that arrangement is intuitive, and the search results that answer “who do I complain to” are usually answering about a different state. This page maps the forums from the statutes that create them: what each one decides, what starts it, and where the detail lives.
The map
| Forum | What it decides | What starts it | Guide |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Human Rights (the commissioner) | Whether there is probable cause to credit a charge of an unfair discriminatory practice, and whether to conciliate, dismiss, or refer it for hearing. Under Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 6(a), the commissioner “shall promptly inquire into the truth of the allegations of the charge,” and shall dismiss a charge that “is frivolous or without merit.” Later in the same subdivision, after the priority list in paragraph (b): “On other charges the commissioner shall make a determination within 12 months after the charge was filed as to whether or not there is probable cause to credit the allegation of unfair discriminatory practices.” | A verified charge under Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 1 — “in writing by hand, or electronically with an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury, on a form provided by the commissioner and signed by the charging party” — filed within one year of the occurrence, § 363A.28, subd. 3(a). | The MDHR charge, step by step |
| An administrative law judge at the Court of Administrative Hearings | A contested case on a commissioner’s determination. Under Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 3, the judge makes findings and, on a violation, orders the respondent “to cease and desist” and “to take such affirmative action as in the judgment of the administrative law judge will effectuate the purposes of this chapter”; that order “shall be a final decision of the department.” Subdivision 4(a) requires a civil penalty to the state and compensatory damages “in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained,” and permits “damages for mental anguish or suffering and reasonable attorney’s fees, in addition to punitive damages in an amount not more than $25,000 pursuant to section 549.20.” | The commissioner forwarding a request for hearing under Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 1, as amended in 2026 — see the currency note below. | What the Human Rights Act can award |
| Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (the commissioner) | Compliance with the wage, payday, earnings-statement, sick-leave, and paid-leave sections named in Minn. Stat. § 177.27, subd. 4. The commissioner issues an order; the employer has 15 calendar days to object, which converts the matter into a contested case under §§ 14.57 to 14.69; silence makes the order “a final order of the commissioner.” | A complaint or the commissioner’s own investigation. The compliance-order power in § 177.27, subd. 4, is the commissioner’s, not the employee’s. | The wage theft notice and your pay stub · Your last paycheck |
| District court — wage and hour, without the Department | The same wage claims, brought by the employee. Minn. Stat. § 177.27, subd. 8, permits a civil action “directly to district court” for violations of §§ 177.21 to 177.44 and § 181.165, with the unpaid amount “and for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” Minn. Stat. § 181.171, subd. 1, permits a civil action “directly to district court” for the chapter 181 pay sections, and subd. 3 makes the fee award mandatory: the court “shall order an employer who is found to have committed a violation to pay to the aggrieved party reasonable costs, disbursements, witness fees, and attorney fees.” | Filing a complaint. Neither section requires an agency step first. | Deductions from your pay · What a case actually costs |
| DEED — an unemployment law judge | Eligibility for unemployment benefits, on the evidence. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1(a), directs the chief unemployment law judge to set “a de novo due process hearing” on at least ten calendar days’ notice. Under subd. 1a(a), the judge must make written findings and “set out the reason for crediting or discrediting” testimony where credibility “has a significant effect on the outcome.” The decision “is final unless a request for reconsideration is filed under subdivision 2.” | An appeal from a determination, filed within 45 calendar days after sending, Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f). “Department” and “commissioner” here mean the Department of Employment and Economic Development and its commissioner, Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subds. 12a and 8a. | Unemployment: the first hearing decides it · Quitting and still collecting |
| Minnesota Court of Appeals — on certiorari | Whether the unemployment law judge’s decision on reconsideration can stand. Under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a), the court “must, by writ of certiorari to the department, review the unemployment law judge’s decision on reconsideration.” Under subd. 7(d) it “may affirm the decision of the unemployment law judge or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision” on the listed grounds. | A petition for the writ filed within 45 calendar days of sending, “[t]hree days … added to the 45-calendar-day period if the decision on reconsideration was mailed to the parties,” § 268.105, subd. 7(a). Subdivision 7(c) provides that “[n]o filing fee or cost bond is required of an applicant.” | Unemployment: the first hearing decides it |
| District court — Human Rights Act | The whole claim, to a jury. Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 6: “A person bringing a civil action seeking redress for an unfair discriminatory practice or a respondent is entitled to a jury trial,” and “[i]f the court or jury finds that the respondent has engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice, it shall issue an order or verdict directing appropriate relief as provided by this section.” | Either a direct civil action under § 363A.28, subd. 1, and § 363A.33, subd. 1, or one of the three post-charge routes in § 363A.33, subd. 1(1)–(3). | Discrimination claims are lost on the calendar · What the Human Rights Act can award |
| District court — Whistleblower Act | The claim and the remedy. Minn. Stat. § 181.935(a) permits “a civil action to recover any and all damages recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney’s fees,” plus “injunctive and other equitable relief as determined by the court.” Paragraph (c) lists what the court may order on a violation — “reinstatement, back pay, restoration of lost service credit, if appropriate, compensatory damages, and the expungement of any adverse records.” | Filing a complaint. No agency step appears in §§ 181.931 to 181.935. | The Whistleblower Act protects the report |
| District court — workers’ compensation retaliation | A civil claim that lives outside the compensation system. Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 1, makes a person who discharges or threatens to discharge an employee for seeking benefits, or who “in any manner intentionally obstruct[s]” one, “liable in a civil action for damages incurred by the employee,” including “costs and reasonable attorney fees, and for punitive damages not to exceed three times the amount of any compensation benefit to which the employee is entitled.” | Filing a complaint. | Workers’ comp retaliation |
| Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals | Appeals from a compensation judge on the merits of a compensation case — and nothing else. Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5, gives it statewide jurisdiction as “the sole, exclusive, and final authority for the hearing and determination of all questions of law and fact arising under the workers’ compensation laws of the state” in appealed and transferred cases, and provides that it “shall have no jurisdiction in any case that does not arise under the workers’ compensation laws of the state or in any criminal case,” excepting tuberculosis claims and chapter 352E. | An appeal under Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1 — “within 30 days after a party in interest has been served with notice of an award or disallowance of compensation, or other order affecting the merits of the case” — on one of the listed grounds. | Workers’ comp retaliation |
| The EEOC, and federal court | A Title VII charge, then a private suit. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), on a charge the Commission serves notice on the respondent “within ten days, and shall make an investigation thereof”; if it finds no reasonable cause “it shall dismiss the charge and promptly notify the person claiming to be aggrieved and the respondent of its action.” Under § 2000e-5(f)(1), on dismissal or after the statutory period the Commission “shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge.” | A charge filed within 180 days of the practice, or 300 where the aggrieved person “has initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). | Every Minnesota employment deadline in one table |
| An arbitrator | Whatever the agreement sends there. This is not a forum the statutes assign; it is one a contract substitutes for the ones above. | An arbitration clause, usually signed at hire. | Arbitration clauses and what they take away |
The forum that changed its name, and the section that changed with it
The body that hears a Human Rights Act contested case is the one most likely to be mis-cited right now, because it was renamed in 2025 and the renaming has not reached every place it appears.
Laws 2025, ch. 39, art. 2, § 17, amended Minn. Stat. § 14.48, subd. 1, by striking “Office” and inserting “Court.” The subdivision now reads in full:
A state Court of Administrative Hearings is created.
Section 18 of the same article carried the change through subd. 2, where the body “shall be under the direction of a chief administrative law judge” and additional judges are appointed “to serve in the court as necessary to fulfill the duties of the Court of Administrative Hearings.” Section 68 of the same article is a revisor instruction that makes it general:
The revisor of statutes shall change the term “Office of Administrative Hearings” to “Court of Administrative Hearings” wherever the term appears in Minnesota Statutes. The revisor of statutes shall also change the term “office” to “court” wherever the term “office” appears and refers to the Office of Administrative Hearings in Minnesota Statutes.
None of those sections carries an effective-date clause, and chapter 39 appropriates money, so the default in Minn. Stat. § 645.02 is the first day of July following enactment — July 1, 2025. The section’s own headnote on the Revisor’s page still reads “OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS,” which changes nothing: Minn. Stat. § 645.49 provides that headnotes “are mere catchwords to indicate the contents of the section or subdivision and are not part of the statute.” The Revisor’s own note beneath § 14.48 says when the rest of it lands: “The Office of Administrative Hearings has been renamed the Court of Administrative Hearings. This terminology change will be implemented in the 2026 Statutes. Laws 2025, chapter 39, article 2, sections 17 and 68.”
The currency note on Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 1. The Revisor currently publishes the 2025 Minnesota Statutes, so the posted text of this subdivision is the pre-2026 text and its History line ends in 2024. Laws 2026, ch. 97, art. 13, § 1, amended it three ways. It struck the venue sentence — “The hearing shall be conducted at a place designated by the commissioner, within the county where the unfair discriminatory practice occurred or where the respondent resides or has a principal place of business.” It inserted a deadline, so that the commissioner “shall decide within 30 days whether to forward the request for hearing.” And it struck “Office” and inserted “Court” before “of Administrative Hearings,” matching the 2025 change to § 14.48. Chapter 97 is a public-safety policy act with no appropriation item and no effective-date clause for that article; under Minn. Stat. § 645.02 an act other than one making appropriations “takes effect on August 1 next following its final enactment.” The governor signed chapter 97 on May 18, 2026, so the amended subdivision took effect August 1, 2026. The 2026 acts affecting this site’s sections are collected in the legislative changelog.
Where the agency route ends, and where it does not
Two of the forums above are dead ends by design, and knowing which is which is the practical value of the whole map.
A no-probable-cause determination is not appealed; it is left behind. Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 6(c), gives a charging party 30 days to ask the commissioner to reconsider a no-probable-cause determination, and then closes the appellate door in one sentence: “A decision by the commissioner that no probable cause exists to credit the allegations of an unfair discriminatory practice shall not be appealed to the court of appeals pursuant to section 363A.34 or sections 14.63 to 14.68.” What opens instead is district court. Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 1(1), permits a civil action “within 90 days after receipt of notice that the commissioner has dismissed a charge,” including a dismissal “because the commissioner has determined that there is no probable cause to credit the allegations contained in a charge filed with the commissioner,” and clause (2) gives the same 90 days after a reaffirmed determination. The closing sentence of subd. 1 supplies the mailing rule: “receipt of notice is presumed to be five days from the date of service by mail of the written notice.” The charge is not the end of the claim, and the deadline that follows it is short.
An unemployment hearing is the record. The judge’s hearing under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1, is the only evidentiary proceeding in the sequence. Reconsideration under subd. 2 goes back to the same judge, and certiorari under subd. 7 goes to the Court of Appeals, which “may affirm the decision of the unemployment law judge or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudiced” on the listed grounds. There is no second chance to put in evidence. That is the whole argument of the unemployment hearing guide.
What the statutes do not say about juries
The Human Rights Act says it plainly: Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 6, entitles either side in a civil action to a jury trial. The Whistleblower Act does not have that sentence. A search of the Whistleblower Act’s remedies section turns up no reference to a jury: Minn. Stat. § 181.935(a) speaks of “a civil action,” paragraph (b) of a civil penalty, and paragraph (c) of what “the district court” may order if it “determines that a violation of section 181.932 occurred.” Neither §§ 181.931 to 181.934 nor § 181.935 mentions a jury in any retrieved text. This page reports that silence and does not fill it; whether a jury right attaches to a § 181.932 claim from some source outside these sections is a question no source retrieved here decides. The source of the jury right for a § 181.932 claim is taken up on the whistleblower remedies page.
The claim: "I have to go to court to get anything done."
That is false for three of the claims on this page, and for one of them court is not available at all. A Human Rights Act charge under Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 1, is filed with the commissioner on a department form and costs nothing; the commissioner then investigates and, under Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 6, "[o]n other charges the commissioner shall make a determination within 12 months after the charge was filed as to whether or not there is probable cause to credit the allegation of unfair discriminatory practices." A wage complaint can produce a compliance order from the commissioner of labor and industry under Minn. Stat. § 177.27, subd. 4, which "becomes a final order of the commissioner" if the employer does not object within 15 calendar days. An unemployment claim goes the other way entirely: Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1, sends it to an unemployment law judge for a de novo hearing, and the only judicial step is certiorari review in the Court of Appeals under subd. 7 — there is no district court action to file, and under subd. 7(c) "[n]o filing fee or cost bond is required of an applicant petitioning the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari."
The claim: "My workers' comp judge can handle the retaliation part too."
The statute creating that court says the opposite. Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5, gives the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals authority over "all questions of law and fact arising under the workers' compensation laws of the state" in cases appealed or transferred to it, and then states the limit: it "shall have no jurisdiction in any case that does not arise under the workers' compensation laws of the state or in any criminal case," excepting tuberculosis claims and chapter 352E. A retaliation claim is not a compensation claim. Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 1, makes a person who discharges or threatens to discharge an employee for seeking benefits "liable in a civil action for damages incurred by the employee," and adds that "[d]amages awarded under this section shall not be offset by any workers' compensation benefits to which the employee is entitled." Two claims, two forums, and the compensation file does not carry the retaliation claim with it.
What this page does not do
This page names forums and what starts them. It does not decide which forum fits a particular set of facts, and that choice is frequently irreversible — the 90-day windows in Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 1, run from a notice most people do not recognize as a starting gun, and the 45-day unemployment clocks in Minn. Stat. §§ 268.101 and 268.105 run from sending rather than from receipt. Applying any of that to a specific letter with a specific date on it is not what this page does. The numbers themselves are collected in the deadline table; what a claim costs to bring in each of these forums is in what a case actually costs; and if you signed something at hire that sends the whole list to an arbitrator, that is its own guide.
Common questions
- Do I have to file with an agency before I can sue for discrimination in Minnesota?
- No. Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 1, gives a choice at the front end: a person aggrieved by a violation of the Human Rights Act "may bring a civil action as provided in section 363A.33, subdivision 1, or may file a verified charge with the commissioner or the commissioner's designated agent." Section 363A.33, subd. 1, opens the same way — the commissioner or a person "may bring a civil action seeking redress for an unfair discriminatory practice directly to district court." The rest of § 363A.33, subd. 1, describes the routes into court after a charge has been filed, which is a different question. Either way, Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3(a), runs one year from the occurrence of the practice.
- Who decides a Minnesota unemployment appeal?
- An unemployment law judge, at the Department of Employment and Economic Development, and the hearing is the only evidentiary one. Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f), makes a determination of eligibility or ineligibility final "unless an appeal is filed by the applicant or employer within 45 calendar days after sending." On a timely appeal, Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1(a), requires the chief unemployment law judge to set "a de novo due process hearing" on at least ten calendar days' notice. Under subd. 1a(a), the judge's decision "is final unless a request for reconsideration is filed under subdivision 2." After reconsideration, the only review is subd. 7(a): the Minnesota Court of Appeals "must, by writ of certiorari to the department, review the unemployment law judge's decision on reconsideration," on a petition filed within 45 calendar days of sending, plus three days if the decision was mailed.
- Is there a jury trial for a Minnesota Human Rights Act case?
- Yes, in district court, and the statute says so in one sentence. Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 6, provides: "A person bringing a civil action seeking redress for an unfair discriminatory practice or a respondent is entitled to a jury trial." The same subdivision then provides that "[i]f the court or jury finds that the respondent has engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice, it shall issue an order or verdict directing appropriate relief as provided by this section." That entitlement belongs to the district court route. The administrative route under Minn. Stat. § 363A.29 is a contested case heard by an administrative law judge, and no jury appears anywhere in that section.
- Does the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals hear a retaliation claim?
- No, and its own jurisdictional subdivision is the reason. Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5, provides that the court "shall have no jurisdiction in any case that does not arise under the workers' compensation laws of the state or in any criminal case," subject to two named exceptions for tuberculosis claims and chapter 352E. A retaliation claim under Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 1, is framed as a civil action: a person who discharges or threatens to discharge an employee for seeking benefits, or who obstructs one, "is liable in a civil action for damages," including costs, reasonable attorney fees, and punitive damages capped at three times the compensation benefit. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals is where an appeal from a compensation judge's award or disallowance goes under Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1, within 30 days of service of notice.
- What can the Department of Labor and Industry actually do about unpaid wages?
- Issue a compliance order, which becomes final if the employer does not object. Minn. Stat. § 177.27, subd. 4, lets the commissioner "issue an order requiring an employer to comply" with a long list of wage, pay-stub, payday, sick-leave, and paid-leave sections. An employer that wishes to contest it "must file written notice of objection to the order with the commissioner within 15 calendar days after being served with the order," which sends the matter to a contested case under Minn. Stat. §§ 14.57 to 14.69; if no objection is filed in that window, "the order becomes a final order of the commissioner." The Department is not the only route. Minn. Stat. § 177.27, subd. 8, lets an employee bring a civil action "directly to district court" for violations of §§ 177.21 to 177.44, and Minn. Stat. § 181.171, subd. 1, does the same for the chapter 181 pay sections.
Sources checked September 8, 2026. Citations independently verified against the primary source September 8, 2026. Updated September 10, 2026.
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.28 (grievances; charge processing) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.29 (conduct of hearings; orders) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.33 (civil actions; jury trial) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Laws 2026, ch. 97, art. 13, § 1 (amending Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 1) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Laws 2025, ch. 39, art. 2, §§ 17–18 (amending Minn. Stat. § 14.48) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 14.48 (Office of Administrative Hearings) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 645.49 (headnotes) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 177.27 (Department of Labor and Industry; compliance orders and court actions) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 181.171 (court actions; private party civil actions) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 268.035 (unemployment insurance definitions) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 268.101 (eligibility determinations) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 268.105 (appeals; judicial review) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 181.932 (Whistleblower Act; prohibited action) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 181.935 (Whistleblower Act; individual remedies; penalty) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 176.82 (workers' compensation retaliation) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 176.421 (appeals to Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 175A.01 (Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals; creation and jurisdiction) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (Title VII enforcement; EEOC charge and civil action) — Cornell Legal Information Institute