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
- Two words that are not synonyms
- What conciliation is for, in the sequence
- What a conciliation agreement does — and what the chapter never says about it
- Signing at the Department ends the 15-day rescission right
- Confidentiality: what chapter 363A actually provides
- Three clocks, and which process stops which
- Currency
- What this page does not do
Two words that are not synonyms
Chapter 363A uses both, in different provisions, imposing different obligations on different people. Counting them is the fastest way to see the shape of it. In the chapter as the Revisor posts it, the word “conciliation” appears six times and “conciliate” once; the word “mediation” appears five times, in three provisions. Neither word is defined anywhere in the chapter, and neither is “conciliation agreement.”
The single use of “conciliate” is not in the charge provisions at all. It is in Minn. Stat. § 363A.44, subd. 4, the equal-pay-certificate enforcement subdivision: “Prior to issuing a fine or suspending or revoking a certificate, the commissioner must first have sought to conciliate with the business regarding wages and benefits due to employees.” That is a separate duty, owed before a separate sanction, and it is not part of the charge process this page describes.
Conciliation is the commissioner’s job. Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 8, headed “Attempts to eliminate unfair practices,” is a single sentence:
The commissioner, in complying with subdivision 6, shall endeavor to eliminate the unfair discriminatory practice through education, conference, conciliation and persuasion at the place where the practice occurred, or the respondent resides or has a principal place of business.
The same duty appears among the commissioner’s general powers. Minn. Stat. § 363A.06, subd. 1(a)(10), directs the commissioner to “attempt, by means of education, conference, conciliation, and persuasion to eliminate unfair discriminatory practices as being contrary to the public policy of the state.” And the paragraph ends by ranking it:
In performing these duties, the commissioner shall give priority to those duties in clauses (8), (9), and (10) and to the duties in section 363A.36.
Clause (8) is investigating charges and determining probable cause. Clause (9) is the subpoena power. Clause (10) is conciliation. The Legislature put settlement work in the same priority tier as the investigation itself.
Mediation is something both sides are offered. Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 5, headed “Alternative dispute resolution,” reads in full:
Charging parties and respondents shall be offered and may request an opportunity to resolve a charge through mediation or another alternative dispute resolution process. Neutrals providing mediation and alternative dispute resolution processes for parties are bound by the Code of Ethics for Court-Annexed ADR Neutrals. The running of the 12-month period during which the commissioner must make a determination of probable cause to credit allegations is suspended during a period of time specified by the commissioner during which the parties are involved in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution process that has been sanctioned by the commissioner.
The first two sentences are new. Laws 2024, ch. 105, § 13, added them; before that amendment the subdivision consisted of the suspension sentence alone, and the same section inserted the word “process” after “alternative dispute resolution” in that sentence. Chapter 105’s title reads “relating to human rights; providing for certain human rights law; providing for civil penalties and other remedies,” it makes no appropriation, and it carries no effective-date clause, so the default in Minn. Stat. § 645.02 applies — an act other than an appropriation act “takes effect on August 1 next following its final enactment.” For a 2024 session act, that is August 1, 2024.
The second sentence is worth sitting with. The neutral at a Department mediation is bound by the same ethics code that binds a neutral appointed under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114 in a filed lawsuit. That is a duty imposed on the neutral. It is not a statutory privilege, and the difference matters below.
What conciliation is for, in the sequence
Conciliation is not a stage the statute schedules. It is a duty attached to the charge-processing subdivision, and its practical consequence shows up at the moment the commissioner decides whether to issue a complaint.
Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 6(d), governs what happens after a probable-cause finding. The commissioner serves the respondent with “a short plain written statement of the alleged facts which support the finding of probable cause and an enumeration of the provisions of law allegedly violated”; the respondent has 30 days to request reconsideration. Then:
If the commissioner determines that attempts to eliminate the alleged unfair practices through conciliation pursuant to subdivision 8 have been or would be unsuccessful or unproductive, the commissioner may issue a complaint and serve on the respondent . . . a written notice of hearing together with a copy of the complaint . . . .
Read “have been or would be.” The statute does not require that conciliation actually be attempted before a complaint issues; a determination that it would be unproductive satisfies the clause. Subdivision 8’s duty to “endeavor” and subdivision 6(d)’s “have been or would be” are drafted to fit each other.
What a conciliation agreement does — and what the chapter never says about it
Chapter 363A names the instrument twice, in parallel provisions, and both times it is doing the same work: closing a door.
Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 1(3) — the department route:
after 45 days from the filing of a charge pursuant to section 363A.28, subdivision 1, if a hearing has not been held pursuant to section 363A.29 or if the commissioner has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the charging party is a signator. The charging party shall notify the commissioner of an intention to bring a civil action, which shall be commenced within 90 days of giving the notice.
Minn. Stat. § 363A.07, subd. 4(2) — the local commission route: a person who filed with a local commission may sue “after 45 days from the filing of the charge if a hearing has not been held or if the local commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the charging party is a signator.”
Two conditions have to hold for that clause to keep the courthouse open: no hearing, and no conciliation agreement the charging party signed. A conciliation agreement signed by the charging party removes the second one.
What the chapter does not supply is everything else. A search of chapter 363A as posted by the Revisor turns up no provision stating what a conciliation agreement must contain, no form requirement, no provision for enforcing one, and no definition of the term. Both times the phrase appears, it appears inside a clause about when a civil action may be brought. This page reports that; it does not fill it.
Signing at the Department ends the 15-day rescission right
The claim: "Minnesota gives you 15 days to back out of any release of a Human Rights Act claim, so I can sign the conciliation agreement and decide later."
That is not what the rescission statute says, and the exception is in the same sentence as the rule. Minn. Stat. § 363A.31, subd. 2, provides that a waiver or release of chapter 363A rights reaching acts "prior to, or concurrent with, the execution of the waiver or release may be rescinded within 15 calendar days of its execution, except that a waiver or release given in settlement of a claim filed with the department or with another administrative agency or judicial body is valid and final upon execution." A charge filed under § 363A.28, subd. 1, is a claim filed with the department. The 15 days, the written notice of the right to rescind, and the delivery mechanics in the rest of subd. 2 govern the release handed across a table at an exit meeting — the subject of a separate page — not a settlement of a charge already on file.
One thing the rescission statute does not reach at all: subd. 1 voids a waiver “if the waiver or release purports to waive claims arising out of acts or practices which occur after the execution of the waiver or release.” That limit is not qualified by the department exception. A conciliation agreement is a settlement of what has already happened. The Revisor prints a note under this section recording that subd. 1 was found preempted by federal law with regard to arbitration agreements; this page does not verify that decision.
Confidentiality: what chapter 363A actually provides
The claim: "Whatever is said in conciliation or mediation at the Department of Human Rights is confidential."
Chapter 363A contains no such provision, and one section runs the other way. Minn. Stat. § 363A.06, subd. 4, headed "Publication of case account," provides that the commissioner "may publish an account of a case in which the complaint has been dismissed or the terms of settlement of a case that has been voluntarily resolved with the Department of Human Rights." What the chapter does have is a data-classification section. Minn. Stat. § 363A.35, subd. 2(a), makes human rights investigative data in an open case file "confidential data on individuals or protected nonpublic data," except that "[t]he name and address of the charging party and respondent, factual basis of the allegations, and the statute under which the action is brought are private data on individuals or nonpublic data but are accessible to the charging party and the respondent." Subdivision 3(a) then makes those same items — plus "the part of the summary of the investigation that does not contain identifying data on a person other than the complainant or respondent, and the commissioner's memorandum determining whether probable cause has been shown" — public data in a closed file. Neither section is a confidentiality rule about what was said in a settlement discussion, and no provision of the chapter creates one.
Two further provisions of § 363A.35 are worth knowing because they are discretionary and they run during the case. Under subd. 2(b), after a charge is filed the commissioner “may disclose information to persons as the commissioner deems necessary (1) to facilitate investigation or disposition of the charge, or (2) to promote public health or safety,” and may share open-file data with another governmental entity to assist in processing a complaint or to avoid duplicated investigation. Under subd. 2(c), after a probable-cause finding the commissioner “may make human rights investigative data contained in an open case file accessible to a person, government agency, or the public if access will aid the investigative and enforcement process.”
Under subd. 3(b), the commissioner may make closed-file data inaccessible to a party “in order to protect medical or other security interests of the parties or third persons,” and under subd. 3(c), when the charging party files in district court the commissioner may provide private or nonpublic closed-file data to both sides.
Three clocks, and which process stops which
The suspensions are not interchangeable, and they live in three different subdivisions.
| Clock | What it is | What suspends it | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| The one year to file | The period to bring a civil action, file with a local commission, or file a charge, running from “the occurrence of the practice” | Voluntary dispute resolution before a charge is filed or an action is brought — “arbitration, conciliation, mediation or grievance procedures pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement or statutory, charter, ordinance provisions for a civil service or other employment system or a school board sexual harassment or sexual violence policy” | § 363A.28, subd. 3(a)–(b) |
| The 12 months to determine probable cause | The commissioner’s deadline on non-priority charges | “[M]ediation or other alternative dispute resolution process that has been sanctioned by the commissioner,” for a period the commissioner specifies | § 363A.28, subd. 5 |
| The one year to determine probable cause | The same obligation stated as a year in the hearing section | Time the case “is involved in significant settlement negotiations,” is “being investigated by another enforcement agency under a work sharing agreement,” or “has been referred to mediation or to a local human rights commission for no fault grievance processing” | § 363A.29, subd. 2 |
The pre-charge suspension in subd. 3(b) puts the paperwork on the employer, and attaches a real consequence to skipping it:
A potential respondent who participates in such a process with a potential charging party before a charge is filed or a civil action is brought shall notify the department and the charging party in writing of the participation in the process and the date the process commenced and shall also notify the department and the charging party of the ending date of the process. A respondent who fails to provide this notification is barred from raising the defense that the statute of limitations has run unless one year plus a period of time equal to the suspension period has passed.
The § 363A.29, subd. 2, tolling has its own gate: “Tolling of the time during settlement negotiations requires written approval of the charging party or the party’s attorney.” Tolling for a work-sharing investigation or a referral to mediation carries no such requirement in the subdivision’s text.
None of these three suspends the deadlines in § 363A.33, subd. 1, that run after the department is finished — the 90 days after a dismissal, the 90 days after a reaffirmed no-probable-cause determination, and the 90 days after notice of intent to sue on a pending charge. Those windows, and the five-day mail presumption attached to the first two, are set out on the charge page and collected in the deadline table.
Currency
Revisor History lines, read on September 11, 2026: § 363A.28 ends 2024 c 105 s 13; § 363A.06 ends 2024 c 105 s 7; § 363A.29 ends 2024 c 105 s 14,15; § 363A.31 ends 1Sp2021 c 11 art 3 s 16; § 363A.33 ends 2024 c 105 s 16-19; § 363A.35 ends 1Sp2019 c 5 art 2 s 9; § 363A.44 ends 1Sp2021 c 11 art 3 s 23-25.
Table 2, queried per exact section: § 363A.28 shows five records, the most recent being subd. 5, amended by the 2024 Regular Session, ch. 105, § 13 — no 2025 or 2026 action. § 363A.06 shows four records, the most recent subd. 4, amended by 2024 ch. 105, § 7. § 363A.31 shows one record, from the 2021 first special session. § 363A.33 shows six records, all from 2014, 2021, or 2024. § 363A.35 shows one record, from the 2019 first special session. § 363A.44 shows six records, the most recent three from the 2021 first special session, including subd. 4.
Two sections quoted here carry 2026 activity, and neither changes a word this page relies on. § 363A.29 shows a 2026 Regular Session record — ch. 97, art. 13, § 1, amending subd. 1, the hearing provision. That amendment is described on the charge page; it does not touch subd. 2, which is the tolling provision quoted above. § 363A.07 shows a 2026 Regular Session record — ch. 88, art. 1, § 195, amending subd. 4. Read in markup, that section strikes 363A.34 and inserts 363A.33 in the opening line, correcting the cross-reference to the civil-action section. The conciliation-agreement clause in subd. 4(2) is untouched. Laws 2026, ch. 88, is a technical-corrections act with no appropriation in its title and no effective-date clause, so § 645.02’s August 1 default governs.
The Revisor publishes the 2025 edition of the statutes, so the posted text of §§ 363A.07 and 363A.29 does not yet show those 2026 changes.
What this page does not do
This page describes two processes and the provisions that create them. It does not say whether a particular charge should go to either one, what a conciliation agreement in a particular file says, or what a particular signature closed off — and the § 363A.33, subd. 1(3), clause is written so that a signature can close a door the signer did not know was open. No case is cited on this page: the tools this site uses to retrieve Minnesota decisions were unavailable when these sources were checked, no search of the case law was run, and nothing here is offered as a report of what any court has held about a conciliation agreement, its enforcement, or the confidentiality of a Department mediation. What the charge process is start to finish is on the charge page; what the Act can award is its own page; and what a release signed outside the Department does and does not buy is the severance page.
Common questions
- What is a conciliation agreement at the Minnesota Department of Human Rights?
- Chapter 363A uses the term twice and never defines it. Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 1(3), permits a civil action 'after 45 days from the filing of a charge pursuant to section 363A.28, subdivision 1, if a hearing has not been held pursuant to section 363A.29 or if the commissioner has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the charging party is a signator,' and Minn. Stat. § 363A.07, subd. 4(2), says the same for a charge filed with a local commission. What the chapter does say is what a conciliation agreement does: once the commissioner has entered into one that the charging party signed, that route to district court is closed. A search of chapter 363A as posted by the Revisor turns up no provision stating what a conciliation agreement must contain, how it is enforced, or who else must sign it.
- Does the Department of Human Rights have to try to settle my charge?
- Conciliation is a duty; mediation is an offer. Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 8, provides that the commissioner, in complying with subdivision 6, 'shall endeavor to eliminate the unfair discriminatory practice through education, conference, conciliation and persuasion at the place where the practice occurred, or the respondent resides or has a principal place of business.' Minn. Stat. § 363A.06, subd. 1(a)(10), states the same duty as a general power, and the closing sentence of that paragraph directs that 'the commissioner shall give priority to those duties in clauses (8), (9), and (10) and to the duties in section 363A.36.' Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 5, is the mediation provision: 'Charging parties and respondents shall be offered and may request an opportunity to resolve a charge through mediation or another alternative dispute resolution process.'
- Is mediation at the Minnesota Department of Human Rights confidential?
- Chapter 363A contains no confidentiality provision for mediation or conciliation. What it contains is a data-classification scheme and a publication power. Minn. Stat. § 363A.35, subd. 2(a), makes human rights investigative data in an open case file 'confidential data on individuals or protected nonpublic data,' while making the names and addresses of the parties, the factual basis of the allegations, and the statute invoked private or nonpublic but accessible to both sides; subd. 3(a) makes several of those items public once the file is closed. Separately, Minn. Stat. § 363A.06, subd. 4, provides that the commissioner 'may publish an account of a case in which the complaint has been dismissed or the terms of settlement of a case that has been voluntarily resolved with the Department of Human Rights.' Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 5, binds the neutral — 'Neutrals providing mediation and alternative dispute resolution processes for parties are bound by the Code of Ethics for Court-Annexed ADR Neutrals' — which is an obligation of the neutral, not a rule about what the parties may say afterward.
- Can I cancel a settlement I sign at the Department of Human Rights?
- Not under the Human Rights Act's rescission provision. Minn. Stat. § 363A.31, subd. 2, gives 15 calendar days to rescind a waiver or release of chapter 363A rights covering past or concurrent acts — 'except that a waiver or release given in settlement of a claim filed with the department or with another administrative agency or judicial body is valid and final upon execution.' A charge filed under § 363A.28, subd. 1, is a claim filed with the department. The 15-day window is for the release handed to you at an exit meeting, not for a settlement of a pending charge.
- Does going to mediation at the Department of Human Rights stop my deadline?
- It stops different clocks depending on when it happens, and none of them is the deadline to file a lawsuit after a dismissal. Before a charge is filed, Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3(b), suspends the one-year filing period 'during the time a potential charging party and respondent are voluntarily engaged in a dispute resolution process involving a claim of unlawful discrimination under this chapter, including arbitration, conciliation, mediation or grievance procedures pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement or statutory, charter, ordinance provisions for a civil service or other employment system or a school board sexual harassment or sexual violence policy.' After a charge is filed, subd. 5 suspends the 12-month probable-cause period 'during a period of time specified by the commissioner during which the parties are involved in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution process that has been sanctioned by the commissioner,' and Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 2, tolls the one-year determination period while a case 'is involved in significant settlement negotiations,' is being investigated under a work sharing agreement, or 'has been referred to mediation or to a local human rights commission for no fault grievance processing.' Tolling for settlement negotiations 'requires written approval of the charging party or the party's attorney.'
Sources checked September 11, 2026. Citations independently verified against the primary source September 11, 2026.
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.28 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.06 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.29 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.31 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.33 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.07 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.35 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.44 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. ch. 363A (full chapter text, for the word searches reported on this page) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Laws 2024, ch. 105, § 13 (amending Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 5) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Laws 2026, ch. 88, art. 1, § 195 (amending Minn. Stat. § 363A.07, subd. 4) — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 645.02 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114 — Minnesota Court Rules, Office of the Revisor of Statutes