Minn. Stat. § 363A.28
Subd. 1. Actions.
Any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter 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. A charge filed with the commissioner must be 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. The charge must state the name of the person alleged to have committed an unfair discriminatory practice and set out a summary of the details of the practice complained of. The commissioner may require a charging party to provide the address of the person alleged to have committed the unfair discriminatory practice, names of witnesses, documents, and any other information necessary to process the charge. The commissioner may dismiss a charge when the charging party fails to provide required information. The commissioner within ten days of the filing shall serve a copy of the charge and a form for use in responding to the charge upon the respondent personally, electronically with the receiving party's consent, or by mail. The respondent shall file with the department a written response setting out a summary of the details of the respondent's position relative to the charge within 30 days of receipt of the charge. If the respondent fails to respond with a written summary of the details of the respondent's position within 30 days after service of the charge, and service was consistent with rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the commissioner, on behalf of the complaining party, may bring an action for default in district court pursuant to rule 55.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[See Note.]
Subd. 2. Commissioner's charge.
Whenever the commissioner has reason to believe that a person is engaging in an unfair discriminatory practice, the commissioner may issue a charge stating in statutory language an alleged violation of subdivision 10 and sections 363A.08 to 363A.19.
Subd. 3. For filing claim; filing options.
Subd. 4. Basis for filing a claim.
For purposes of subdivision 3, the first application of an unfair discriminatory practice, employment policy, or seniority system to a new person establishes a basis for the filing of a claim by that person.
Subd. 5. Alternative dispute resolution.
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.
Subd. 6. Charge processing.
(b) The commissioner shall give priority to investigating and processing those charges, in the order below, which the commissioner determines have the following characteristics:
(6) the charge is supported by substantial and credible documentation, witnesses, or other evidence.
The commissioner shall inform charging parties of these priorities and shall tell each party if their charge is a priority case or not.
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.
(c) If the commissioner determines after investigation that no probable cause exists to credit the allegations of the unfair discriminatory practice, the commissioner shall, within ten days of the determination, serve upon the charging party and respondent written notice of the determination. Within 30 days after receipt of notice, the charging party may request in writing, on forms prepared by the department, that the commissioner reconsider the determination. The request shall contain a brief statement of the reasons for and new evidence in support of the request for reconsideration. At the time of submission of the request to the commissioner, the charging party shall deliver or mail to the respondent a copy of the request for reconsideration. The commissioner shall reaffirm, reverse, or vacate and remand for further consideration the determination of no probable cause within 20 days after receipt of the request for reconsideration, and shall within ten days notify in writing the charging party and respondent of the decision to reaffirm, reverse, or vacate and remand for further consideration.
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.
Subd. 7. Application of rules.
Rules adopted pursuant to this subdivision apply to cases pending before the commissioner on the date of adoption.
Subd. 8. Attempts to eliminate unfair practices.
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.
Subd. 9. Access to documents.
The commissioner shall provide the respondent with a copy of the charge. The charging party or the party's representative may review the answer of the respondent to the charge submitted pursuant to subdivision 1. The department shall make these documents available to the charging party.
Subd. 10. Disparate impact cases in employment.
If the complaining party has met its burden of showing that an employment practice is responsible for a statistically significant adverse impact on a particular class of persons protected by section 363A.08, subdivision 2, an employer must justify that practice by demonstrating that the practice is manifestly related to the job or significantly furthers an important business purpose. Upon establishment of this justification, the charging party may prevail upon demonstration of the existence of a comparably effective practice that the court finds would cause a significantly lesser adverse impact on the identified protected class.