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 forums, two remedy provisions, and the commissioner writes neither one
- The mandatory sentences, and the one that does not pay you
- “Up to three times the actual damages sustained”
- Punitive damages come from chapter 549, and one forum caps them by name
- Reinstatement and back pay are one subdivision later, and the verb is “may”
- Fees and costs are their own subdivision, and the word is “party,” not “employee”
- The orders that are not about money
- What the commissioner can order, as distinct from what a judge can order
- Currency
Two forums, two remedy provisions, and the commissioner writes neither one
A chapter 363A employment case ends in one of two places, and the remedies are written out separately for each. If the case is heard as a contested case, an administrative law judge orders relief under Minn. Stat. § 363A.29. If it goes to district court, the court orders relief under Minn. Stat. § 363A.33. What the Department of Human Rights does before either of those happens — screening, investigation, probable cause, conciliation — is the subject of a separate page, and none of it is a remedy.
The two provisions are close to parallel, and where they differ they differ in ways worth reading carefully.
The mandatory sentences, and the one that does not pay you
Section 363A.33, subd. 8(a), in full:
The court shall order any respondent found to be in violation of any provision of sections 363A.08 to 363A.19 and 363A.28, subdivision 10, to pay a civil penalty to the state. This penalty is in addition to all damages recoverable at law and punitive damages to be paid to an aggrieved party. The court shall determine the amount of the civil penalty to be paid, taking into account the seriousness and extent of the violation, the public harm occasioned by the violation, whether the violation was intentional, and the financial resources of the respondent. Any penalties imposed under this provision shall be paid into the general fund of the state. In all cases where the court finds that the respondent has engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice, the court shall order the respondent to pay an aggrieved party who has suffered discrimination compensatory damages, including mental anguish or suffering, in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained. In all cases, the court may also order the respondent to pay an aggrieved party punitive damages pursuant to section 549.20. In any case under this chapter that is decided by a jury, the jury shall determine the amount of all damages to be awarded.
Two of the orders in that paragraph are mandatory and one is permissive. The first mandatory item is the civil penalty, and the fourth sentence says where it goes: “into the general fund of the state.” A reader who counts the civil penalty as part of what a claim is worth to them has counted a payment to Minnesota. The amount is not fixed; the court sets it on four listed factors — seriousness and extent, public harm, whether the violation was intentional, and the respondent’s financial resources.
The second mandatory item is compensatory damages, and the multiplier is inside it.
“Up to three times the actual damages sustained”
The trebling language is a ceiling on a discretionary multiplier. The court “shall order” compensatory damages; the amount is “up to three times the actual damages sustained,” and the subdivision states no floor above actual damages. In the district-court version, mental anguish is written inside that mandatory sentence — “compensatory damages, including mental anguish or suffering, in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained.”
The administrative version is drafted differently, and the difference is not cosmetic. Section 363A.29, subd. 4(a), splits the same material across two sentences:
In all cases where the administrative law judge finds that the respondent has engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay an aggrieved party, who has suffered discrimination, compensatory damages in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained. In all cases, the administrative law judge may also order the respondent to pay an aggrieved party, who has suffered discrimination, 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.
Before an administrative law judge, mental anguish damages and attorney’s fees sit in the permissive sentence. In district court, mental anguish is folded into the mandatory one and fees are governed by a separate subdivision. Same statute, two forums, two different placements of the same idea.
The last sentence of § 363A.33, subd. 8(a), also matters procedurally: “In any case under this chapter that is decided by a jury, the jury shall determine the amount of all damages to be awarded.” Under subd. 6, “[a] person bringing a civil action seeking redress for an unfair discriminatory practice or a respondent is entitled to a jury trial” — the right runs to both sides.
Punitive damages come from chapter 549, and one forum caps them by name
Both remedy provisions send the reader out of chapter 363A for punitive damages. The standard is in Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1:
(a) Punitive damages shall be allowed in civil actions only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.
(b) A defendant has acted with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others and:
(1) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high degree of probability of injury to the rights or safety of others; or
(2) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others.
“Clear and convincing evidence” is the statute’s own threshold and a demanding one: § 549.20, subd. 1(a), allows punitive damages “only upon” that showing. Section 549.20, subd. 4, separately lets any party force the punitive question into a separate proceeding held after compensatory damages are decided, with evidence of the defendant’s financial condition inadmissible in the first stage.
Punitive damages are also not something a complaint may ask for on the day it is filed. Minn. Stat. § 549.191, in part:
Upon commencement of a civil action, the complaint must not seek punitive damages. After filing the suit a party may make a motion to amend the pleadings to claim punitive damages. The motion must allege the applicable legal basis under section 549.20 or other law for awarding punitive damages in the action and must be accompanied by one or more affidavits showing the factual basis for the claim. At the hearing on the motion, if the court finds prima facie evidence in support of the motion, the court shall grant the moving party permission to amend the pleadings to claim punitive damages.
The caps differ by forum. Before an administrative law judge, § 363A.29, subd. 4(a), authorizes “punitive damages in an amount not more than $25,000 pursuant to section 549.20,” and that figure is in the operative sentence for every respondent. In district court, § 363A.33, subd. 8(a), authorizes punitive damages “pursuant to section 549.20” and attaches no number; the only cap in that subdivision is paragraph (b), which limits punitive damages against a political subdivision to $25,000, allows apportionment among two or more respondents, and provides that “[p]unitive damages may only be assessed against a political subdivision in its capacity as a corporate entity and no regular or ex officio member of a governing body of a political subdivision shall be personally liable for payment of punitive damages . . . .” Section 363A.29, subd. 4(b), is the parallel provision on the administrative side.
Reinstatement and back pay are one subdivision later, and the verb is “may”
Back pay is not in the damages subdivision at all. It is in § 363A.33, subd. 9(1), as an option attached to three other things:
In addition to the remedies in subdivision 8, where a case involves discrimination in: (1) employment, the court may order: (i) the hiring, reinstatement, or upgrading of an aggrieved party who has suffered discrimination, with or without back pay; (ii) admission or restoration to membership in a labor organization; (iii) admission to or participation in an apprenticeship training program, on-the-job training program, or other retraining program; or (iv) any other relief the court deems just and equitable . . . .
Every item on that list is introduced by “the court may order.” Section 363A.29, subd. 5(1), gives an administrative law judge the same menu in the same permissive form, and adds that these remedies come “[i]n addition to the remedies in subdivision 4.” Clause (iv) — “any other relief the court deems just and equitable” — is the open end of the list, and the statute supplies no catalogue of what falls inside it.
The claim: "The most I can get out of a Human Rights Act case is my back pay."
That is not how chapter 363A is built. Back pay is not the measure and it is not mandatory. Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 8(a), makes two orders mandatory. On a finding that the respondent "has engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice" the court must order "compensatory damages, including mental anguish or suffering, in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained." On a finding that the respondent is "in violation of any provision of sections 363A.08 to 363A.19 and 363A.28, subdivision 10" — the article that includes the employment and reprisal sections — the court must also order a civil penalty payable to the state. Back pay appears only in subd. 9(1), as an optional companion to hiring, reinstatement, or upgrading: "the court may order: (i) the hiring, reinstatement, or upgrading of an aggrieved party who has suffered discrimination, with or without back pay." Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subds. 4(a) and 5(1), are parallel for an administrative law judge. Punitive damages under Minn. Stat. § 549.20 sit on top of both, and attorney's fees are a separate subdivision again. The mirror-image error is just as common: the civil penalty in subd. 8(a) is not money to the employee, because the same paragraph says "[a]ny penalties imposed under this provision shall be paid into the general fund of the state."
Fees and costs are their own subdivision, and the word is “party,” not “employee”
Section 363A.33, subd. 7, first sentence:
In any action or proceeding brought pursuant to this section the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.
Read the noun. The subdivision says “the prevailing party” — the text does not by its terms limit the award to a prevailing employee, and it does not make the award mandatory for anyone. The rest of subd. 7 is about a different situation entirely: in a case brought by the Department, the court “shall order” a respondent determined to have discriminated to reimburse the department and the attorney general for litigation and court costs “unless payment of the costs would impose a financial hardship on the respondent.” That reimbursement runs to the state, not to a private plaintiff. What fee-shifting statutes do and do not do — including the ones that name the employee and the ones that do not — is worked through on what a case actually costs. The same subdivision is quoted, for a different purpose, on arbitration clauses.
On the administrative side there is a matching cost provision running the other way. Section 363A.29, subd. 11, directs the administrative law judge to order a respondent determined to have engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice “to reimburse the department and the attorney general for all appropriate litigation and hearing costs expended in preparing for and conducting the hearing, unless payment of the costs would impose a financial hardship on the respondent,” and lists what those costs include, down to court reporters and transcripts.
The orders that are not about money
Section 363A.29, subd. 3, is the injunctive core of the administrative remedy:
The administrative law judge shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and if the administrative law judge finds that the respondent has engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice, the administrative law judge shall issue an order directing the respondent to cease and desist from the unfair discriminatory practice found to exist and to take such affirmative action as in the judgment of the administrative law judge will effectuate the purposes of this chapter. The order shall be a final decision of the department.
Two remedies in chapter 363A reach outside the case. Under § 363A.29, subd. 8, where the respondent is subject to state or local licensing or regulatory power, the administrative law judge determines that it engaged in a discriminatory practice, and the respondent “does not cease to engage in such discriminatory practice,” the commissioner “may so certify to the licensing or regulatory agency,” and that agency “may take appropriate administrative action, including suspension or revocation of the respondent’s license or certificate of public convenience and necessity, if the agency is otherwise authorized to take such action.” Under subd. 9, where the respondent is a party to a public contract, the determination alone is enough — the text attaches no requirement that the practice continue — and the contract letting agency “may take appropriate administrative action, including the imposition of financial penalties or termination of the contract, in whole or in part, if the agency is otherwise authorized to take the action.”
There is also relief available while the case is still pending, and it belongs to the commissioner rather than to the charging party. Section 363A.28, subd. 6(e), lets the commissioner petition district court at any time after a charge is filed for “appropriate temporary relief against the respondent, pending final determination of proceedings under this chapter,” and provides that “no relief or order extending beyond ten days shall be granted except by consent of the respondent or after hearing upon notice to the respondent and a finding by the court that there is reasonable cause to believe that the respondent has engaged in a discriminatory practice.”
What the commissioner can order, as distinct from what a judge can order
The commissioner’s own powers and duties are listed in § 363A.06, subd. 1(a), which directs that the commissioner “shall formulate policies to effectuate the purposes of this chapter and shall do the following,” and the remedy sentences are not on the list. The list includes “issue complaints, receive and investigate charges alleging unfair discriminatory practices, and determine whether or not probable cause exists for hearing”; “subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, and require the production for examination of any books or papers relative to any matter under investigation or in question as the commissioner deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter”; and “attempt, by means of education, conference, conciliation, and persuasion to eliminate unfair discriminatory practices as being contrary to the public policy of the state.”
Investigate, charge, determine, subpoena, conciliate, certify to another agency, and petition for temporary relief. The order that awards damages, sets the multiplier, or directs reinstatement is signed by an administrative law judge under § 363A.29 or by a district court under § 363A.33. Conciliation is a duty the commissioner owes under § 363A.28, subd. 8 — to “endeavor to eliminate the unfair discriminatory practice through education, conference, conciliation and persuasion” — and nothing in that subdivision orders anyone to pay anything. Section 363A.33, subd. 1(3), then conditions the 45-day route into district court on the state of two things: whether “a hearing has not been held pursuant to section 363A.29” and whether “the commissioner has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the charging party is a signator.”
Currency
The Revisor currently publishes the 2025 edition of Minnesota Statutes. The History lines were read on each section cited here: § 363A.29 ends “2024 c 105 s 14,15”; § 363A.33 ends “2024 c 105 s 16-19”; § 363A.28 ends “2024 c 105 s 13”; § 363A.06 ends “2024 c 105 s 7”; § 549.20 ends “1990 c 555 s 15-18”; § 549.191 shows only “1986 c 455 s 82.” The Revisor’s table of Minnesota Statutes affected by session laws was queried one exact section at a time for each. The only 2026 record returned for any of them is a 2026 Regular Session, chapter 97, article 13, section 1 amendment to § 363A.29, subdivision 1 — the hearing-conduct provision, which is described on the Department of Human Rights page and is not quoted here. No 2025 or 2026 record touches § 363A.29, subds. 3 through 5; § 363A.33, subds. 6 through 9; § 549.20; or § 549.191.
Which of these remedies is realistically on the table in a given case turns on the forum, the proof, and the discretion of whoever is signing the order. Reading that off a particular file is not what this page does.
Common questions
- What damages can you get under the Minnesota Human Rights Act?
- In district court, Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 8(a), directs that on a finding of an unfair discriminatory practice the court 'shall order the respondent to pay an aggrieved party who has suffered discrimination compensatory damages, including mental anguish or suffering, in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained.' The same paragraph makes a civil penalty payable to the state mandatory as well on a finding of a violation of sections 363A.08 to 363A.19 or section 363A.28, subdivision 10, and that penalty goes into the general fund rather than to the employee. Punitive damages are permissive and come from Minn. Stat. § 549.20. Reinstatement, back pay, and other equitable relief are in subd. 9(1), and each is introduced by 'may.'
- Does the Minnesota Human Rights Act really allow triple damages?
- The statute's words are 'in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained,' in Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 8(a), for a district court and in Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 4(a), for an administrative law judge. 'Up to' is a ceiling on a discretionary multiplier, not a fixed tripling. What the statute makes mandatory is the order of compensatory damages; the multiplier inside that order is bounded at three times actual damages and no floor is stated.
- Who gets the civil penalty in a Minnesota Human Rights Act case?
- The state. Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 8(a), directs the court to order a respondent found in violation 'to pay a civil penalty to the state,' says the penalty 'is in addition to all damages recoverable at law and punitive damages to be paid to an aggrieved party,' and provides that '[a]ny penalties imposed under this provision shall be paid into the general fund of the state.' Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 4(a), is parallel for an administrative law judge. The employee does not receive the civil penalty.
- Are punitive damages capped under the Minnesota Human Rights Act?
- It depends on the forum and on who the respondent is. Before an administrative law judge, Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 4(a), authorizes 'punitive damages in an amount not more than $25,000 pursuant to section 549.20' — the cap is in the text and applies to every respondent. In district court, Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 8(a), authorizes punitive damages 'pursuant to section 549.20' with no figure attached, and the only cap in that subdivision is in paragraph (b), which limits punitive damages against a political subdivision to $25,000.
- Can a court order my employer to hire me back under the Human Rights Act?
- It is on the list of available relief and it is discretionary. Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subd. 9(1), provides that in an employment case 'the court may order: (i) the hiring, reinstatement, or upgrading of an aggrieved party who has suffered discrimination, with or without back pay,' along with labor-organization and training remedies and '(iv) any other relief the court deems just and equitable.' Minn. Stat. § 363A.29, subd. 5(1), gives an administrative law judge the same menu. Whether any of it is ordered in a given case is left to the court or the judge.
Sources checked September 8, 2026. Citations independently verified against the primary source September 8, 2026.
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.29 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.33 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.28 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 363A.06 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 549.20 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
- Minn. Stat. § 549.191 — Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes