A Minnesota Public Employee Is Written Out of the Personnel Record Act — and Chapter 13 Gives a Correction Right the Private Statute Does Not

The statute the rest of this site describes does not reach you

Minnesota’s Personnel Record Review and Access Act is one of the most useful things a private-sector employee has: a written request, seven working days, a free copy, and a sanction if the employer leaves something out. A government employee has none of it, and the reason is one sentence in the definitions.

Minn. Stat. § 181.960, subd. 3:

“Employer” means a person who has one or more employees. Employer does not include a state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or advisory board or commission that is subject to chapter 13.

The second sentence removes the State of Minnesota, every county, every city, every town, every school district, and every advisory board and commission subject to the Government Data Practices Act. What goes with them is the whole of §§ 181.961 to 181.965 — the seven-working-day response, the rule that “[t]he employer may not charge a fee for the copy,” the five-page position statement in § 181.962, the provision in § 181.963 barring an employer’s use of information it omitted, the anti-retaliation clause in § 181.964, and the remedies and one-year period in § 181.965. Those are set out for the employees they do reach in your personnel file is free discovery.

Minn. Stat. § 181.966 states the routing in one line: sections 181.960 to 181.965 “do not prevent an employer from providing additional rights to employees and do not diminish a right of access to records under chapter 13.”

Access: ten days, actual costs, and a right to be told what the data means

Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 3, is the access provision, and it is written as a sequence of requests rather than one:

Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge and, if desired, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data. After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. The responsible authority or designee shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority or designee may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making and certifying the copies.

Three things in that paragraph are worth separating. The first request establishes existence and classification. The second produces the data itself at no charge for inspection, plus a right to “be informed of the content and meaning of that data” — an explanation right the private-sector statute does not contain. Copies are a third step and they are the step that can cost money.

The six-month frequency limit has two escape hatches built into it: a pending dispute or action under the section, and additional data collected or created since the review. An employee who reviewed a file in March and was disciplined in May is inside the second one.

Timing is the last sentence: the responsible authority “shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible.”

“Responsible authority” is defined at § 13.02, subd. 16 — in a state agency or statewide system, “the state official designated by law or by the commissioner”; in a political subdivision, “the individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision,” with a default until one is designated. A request addressed to a supervisor is not a request under the section; a request to the responsible authority is.

One provision at the front of the section is worth knowing even though it runs before any of this. Section 13.04, subd. 2, the Tennessen warning, requires that an individual asked to supply private or confidential data about themselves be told the purpose and intended use of the data, “whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data,” “any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data,” and “the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.”

The rebuttal right, and why the public version has more in it

A private-sector employee who disputes something in the file gets a statement. Minn. Stat. § 181.962, subd. 1, lets the employer and the employee “agree to remove or revise the disputed information,” and if they do not agree, lets the employee “submit a written statement specifically identifying the disputed information and explaining the employee’s position,” capped at “five written pages” and kept with the disputed information “for as long as that information is maintained in the employee’s personnel record.” The employer is never required to answer, and there is no deadline anywhere in the section. What the employee gets in exchange is the defamation structure in subd. 2, which makes an employer’s later communication of the disputed information actionable on four conditions.

The public-sector version is built the other way. Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4:

(a) An individual subject of the data may contest the accuracy or completeness of public or private data about themselves.

(b) To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority of the government entity that maintains the data, describing the nature of the disagreement.

(c) Upon receiving notification from the data subject, the responsible authority shall within 30 days either:

(1) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or

(2) notify the individual that the responsible authority has determined the data to be correct. If the challenged data are determined to be accurate or complete, the responsible authority shall inform the individual of the right to appeal the determination to the commissioner as specified under paragraph (d). Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual’s statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data.

Four differences follow from that text. The government has a deadline — thirty days — where a private employer has none. The first option is correction rather than annotation, and it carries a duty to “attempt to notify past recipients,” including recipients the individual names. The refusal is not final: paragraph (d) gives an appeal “to the commissioner,” submitted “within 60 days of the responsible authority’s notice of the right to appeal or as otherwise provided by the rules of the commissioner,” heard “pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act relating to contested cases,” and preceded by an attempt to resolve the dispute “through education, conference, conciliation, or persuasion” and, with consent, mediation. And the statement of disagreement attaches automatically in the interim: data in dispute “shall be disclosed only if the individual’s statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data,” without the employee having to draft, submit, and police a position statement.

Paragraph (e) lists three grounds on which the commissioner may dismiss an appeal without attempting resolution: that it is untimely, that it “concerns data previously presented as evidence in a court proceeding in which the data subject was a party,” or that “the individual making the appeal is not the subject of the data challenged as inaccurate or incomplete.”

Paragraph (g) is the remedy a private-sector employee does not have at all: “Data on individuals that have been successfully challenged by an individual must be completed, corrected, or destroyed by a government entity without regard to the requirements of section 138.17” — the records-retention statute. Paragraph (h) permits the entity to keep the commissioner’s order, or a summary of the dispute “that does not contain any particulars of the successfully challenged data.”

Two provisions added by that 2025 act are worth naming because they govern the appeal record. New paragraph (f) permits the responsible authority to submit private data to the commissioner in response to an appeal, provides that data submitted “have the same classification as the data when maintained by the government entity,” and permits the commissioner to “disclose private data contained within the appeal record to the Office of Administrative Hearings.” New paragraph (i) classifies as private data “[d]ata maintained by the commissioner that a responsible authority has completed, corrected, or destroyed as the result of the informal resolution process described in paragraph (d) or by order of the commissioner.”

What the public can see about you

Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 1, defines the category: “personnel data” means “government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a government entity.” Volunteers and independent contractors are inside it.

Subdivision 2(a) then makes eight categories public, “[e]xcept for employees described in subdivision 5 and subject to the limitations described in subdivision 5a”:

(1) name; employee identification number, which must not be the employee’s Social Security number; actual gross salary; salary range; terms and conditions of employment relationship; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary;

(2) job title and bargaining unit; job description; education and training background; and previous work experience;

(3) date of first and last employment;

(4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;

(5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;

(6) the complete terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement as defined in section 123B.143, subdivision 2, paragraph (a); except that the agreement must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money;

(7) work location; a work telephone number; badge number; work-related continuing education; and honors and awards received; and

(8) payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee’s work time for payroll purposes, except to the extent that release of time sheet data would reveal the employee’s reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave or other not public data.

Everything else is private. Subdivision 4 is one line for the remainder: “All other personnel data is private data on individuals but may be released pursuant to a court order. Data pertaining to an employee’s dependents are private data on individuals.” “Private data on individuals,” under § 13.02, subd. 12, are “data made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the individual subject of those data” — not public, and available to you.

Clause (8)’s exception is the one to notice. A time sheet is public, but not “to the extent that release of time sheet data would reveal the employee’s reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave or other not public data.” The reason for a sick day does not become public because the payroll record is.

Applicant data has its own rule. Subdivision 3, in full:

Except for applicants described in subdivision 5, the following personnel data on current and former applicants for employment by a government entity is public: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. Names of applicants shall be private data except when certified as eligible for appointment to a vacancy or when applicants are considered by the appointing authority to be finalists for a position in public employment. For purposes of this subdivision, “finalist” means an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection.

Six items are public about a person who applied, and the applicant’s own name is private until one of two things happens: certification as eligible for appointment, or selection to be interviewed.

The 2025 change that moved the line for small cities and counties

Subdivision 2(e) makes all data relating to a complaint or charge against a public official public on completion of an investigation, or if the official resigns or is terminated while the complaint is pending, “unless access to the data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources.” Subdivision 2(f) narrows that for the employees in clause (5) of the definition: their complaint data are public only if the complaint “results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending,” or if “potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement.”

Who counts as a public official changed in 2025. Reading Laws 2025, chapter 35, article 9, section 4, in the revisor’s strike-and-insert markup, what is now clause (5)(iii) reaches, in its retained words, “in a city or a county: managers; chiefs; heads or directors of departments, divisions, bureaus, or boards; and any equivalent position.” Two strings were struck out of it. After “in a city,” the act struck “with a population of more than 7,500.” After “or a county,” it struck “with a population of more” and “than 5,000” in two adjacent deleted-text spans. The list of positions is unchanged and the population floors are gone. The same section added a new clause (3) covering “members of the Metropolitan Council appointed by the governor under section 473.123, subdivision 3,” renumbered the clauses that followed, and added a new clause (5)(v) listing named Metropolitan Council positions.

A department head in a town of two thousand people is inside subdivision 2(e) as of that amendment and was outside it before. Laws 2025, chapter 35, is an act having appropriation items — its title recites that it appropriates money “for judiciary, public safety, corrections, Board of Civil Legal Aid, Guardian ad Litem Board, Tax Court,” and other agencies — and article 9, section 4, carries no effective-date clause of its own; the next line in the act is section 5. The revisor publishes the amended text in the 2025 edition and the History line for § 13.43 ends with “2025 c 35 art 9 s 4.”

Three provisions employees ask about and rarely find

Harassment complaints. Subdivision 8 limits an accused employee’s own access: where allegations of “sexual or other types of harassment” are made, “the employee does not have access to data that would identify the complainant or other witnesses if the responsible authority determines that the employee’s access to that data would: (1) threaten the personal safety of the complainant or a witness; or (2) subject the complainant or witness to harassment.” The subdivision then restores it at the point it matters: “If a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the employee, data on the complainant or witness shall be available to the employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding.” Harassment claims themselves run on a different chapter — see harassment after the 2024 amendments.

Settlement gag clauses. Subdivision 10(a) is quoted in full in the frequently asked questions above, and its operative words are that an agreement with “the purpose or effect of limiting access to or disclosure of personnel data or limiting the discussion of information or opinions related to personnel data” is “void and unenforceable.” Note the boundary in paragraph (b): the prohibition applies “only to the extent that the data or information could otherwise be made accessible to the public,” and it excepts “a provision that limits the ability of an employee to release or discuss private data that identifies other employees.” A public employer may still protect coworkers’ private data by contract. It may not buy silence about what subdivision 2 makes public. How a severance release works generally, including the rescission rights that run on a different clock, is in the severance release: what it buys.

Home addresses and union communications. Subdivision 6(e) classifies as private “[t]he home addresses, nonemployer issued phone numbers and email addresses, dates of birth, and emails or other communications between exclusive representatives and their members, prospective members, and nonmembers.” Paragraphs (a) through (d) of the same subdivision require dissemination of personnel data to an exclusive representative, the Public Employment Relations Board, and the Bureau of Mediation Services in stated circumstances, and provide that an employer who disseminates personnel data to a labor organization under the subdivision “shall not be subject to liability under section 13.08.”

What it is worth when the entity gets it wrong

Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 1:

Notwithstanding section 466.03, a responsible authority or government entity which violates any provision of this chapter is liable to a person or representative of a decedent who suffers any damage as a result of the violation, and the person damaged or a representative in the case of private data on decedents or confidential data on decedents may bring an action against the responsible authority or government entity to cover any damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. In the case of a willful violation, the government entity shall, in addition, be liable to exemplary damages of not less than $1,000, nor more than $15,000 for each violation. The state is deemed to have waived any immunity to a cause of action brought under this chapter.

Damages require damage. Where what the employee wants is the data rather than money, subd. 4(a) is the provision: “any aggrieved person seeking to enforce the person’s rights under this chapter or obtain access to data may bring an action in district court to compel compliance with this chapter and may recover costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.” The same paragraph permits “a civil penalty of up to $1,000 against the government entity,” payable to the state general fund, and permits an award of costs and fees against a plaintiff whose action the court finds “frivolous and without merit and a basis in fact.” Paragraph (b) lists six compliance factors the court weighs before assessing the penalty, and paragraph (c) makes a fee award mandatory for a prevailing plaintiff where the entity “was also the subject of a written opinion issued under section 13.072” and the court finds both “that the opinion is directly related to the cause of action being litigated” and that the entity “did not act in conformity with the opinion.”

Subdivision 2 authorizes an injunction. Subdivision 6 protects an entity that releases data from a termination or personnel settlement agreement that “were not public data . . . at the time the agreement was executed but become public data under a law enacted after execution.”

Section 13.09 adds a penalty that runs against the individual rather than the entity: “Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this chapter or any rules adopted under this chapter or whose conduct constitutes the knowing unauthorized acquisition of not public data, as defined in section 13.055, subdivision 1, is guilty of a misdemeanor,” and a willful violation “by any public employee constitutes just cause for suspension without pay or dismissal of the public employee.”

None of that is a retaliation claim, and the point is worth stating as the search it rests on. Chapter 13 was retrieved in full from the revisor on September 11, 2026 and searched case-insensitively: “retaliat” returns zero occurrences, and “reprisal” returns one — in Minn. Stat. § 13.86, defining “investigative detention data” to include data that “if revealed, is likely to subject the informant to physical reprisals by others.” That is a report of the words searched, not a conclusion about every protection the chapter might carry. What chapter 13 does supply is access, correction, damages for damage, and an action to compel. The discharge-and-discipline prohibition in Minn. Stat. § 181.964 is written for the private-sector employees the Personnel Record Review and Access Act reaches, and a public employee whose request or report was met with discipline is looking at a different statute. The Whistleblower Act reaches public employers by its own terms: see public employees and whistleblowing and the whistleblower map.

Currency

The revisor currently publishes the 2025 Minnesota Statutes edition. The History lines read: § 13.04, “1974 c 479 s 4; . . . 2023 c 62 art 2 s 33; 2024 c 125 art 5 s 42; 2024 c 127 art 50 s 42; 2025 c 39 art 2 s 15”; § 13.43, “1979 c 328 s 17; . . . 2023 c 53 art 8 s 1; art 11 s 1; 2024 c 127 art 8 s 1; 2025 c 35 art 9 s 4”; § 13.08, “1974 c 479 s 5; . . . 2013 c 125 art 1 s 1; 2016 c 158 art 1 s 6”; § 13.09, “1974 c 479 s 6; 1975 c 401 s 6; 1976 c 239 s 6; 1981 c 311 s 39; 1982 c 545 s 24; 1985 c 298 s 7; 2014 c 284 s 3”; § 181.960, “1989 c 349 s 1; 1994 c 595 s 1; 2007 c 147 art 10 s 15; 2024 c 127 art 9 s 4”; § 181.962, “1989 c 349 s 3; 1992 c 445 s 2”; § 181.966, “1989 c 349 s 7.”

The revisor’s table of Minnesota Statutes affected by the 2026 Regular Session was queried one exact section at a time and every returned row read on its Session column. Sections 13.02, 13.09, 181.960, and 181.961 show no 2025 or 2026 action; §§ 13.86, 181.962, and 181.966 return “No Records Found” across the whole range the table covers. Section 13.08 shows no action after 2016 — subdivision 4, amended by Laws 2016, chapter 158, article 1, section 6 — and § 181.961 none after 2004.

Two 2026 rows, and one of them is a lag. Section 13.04 shows one 2026 action, at subdivision 4a — the sex offender program data provision, amended by Laws 2026, chapter 95, article 1, section 2. Subdivision 4a is not quoted on this page. Section 13.43 shows one 2026 action, at subdivision 5a, amended by Laws 2026, chapter 95, article 1, section 4, and the revisor’s page for § 13.43 carries the corresponding notice while its History line still ends at “2025 c 35 art 9 s 4.” The posted text of subdivision 5a therefore does not yet carry the amendment. Reading that section in the strike-and-insert markup, the act extends the subdivision’s non-disclosure protection to employees of a secure treatment facility “defined in section 253B.02, subdivision 18a,” or “253D.02, subdivision 13,” and to “employees of a treatment program as defined in section 253D.02, subdivision 17”; adds “or clients” to the list of people the data must not be disclosed to; replaces “shall” with “must” in the operative prohibition; and numbers the three existing categories as clauses (1) to (3). The section carries its own effective-date clause: “This section is effective the day following final enactment and applies to any data request pending on or received after that date.” Subdivision 5a matters to this page only because subdivision 2(a) opens by making its list public “subject to the limitations described in subdivision 5a,” and the amendment widens that limitation rather than the public list.

This page describes the machinery. Whether a particular record is personnel data, whether a particular item falls inside one of the eight public categories, whether a disciplinary action has reached final disposition, and whether particular data are inaccurate or incomplete are questions about a specific file and a specific proceeding, and applying these statutes to them is not what this page does.