Legal Opinion
Raygor v. University of Minnesota
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided January 11, 2000No. C1-99-1140PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge.
Appellants Lance Raygor and James Goodchild brought this action against their employer, respondent University of Minnesota (University), alleging age discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn.Stat. § 363.01-.20 (1996). The .University moved to dismiss, arguing that the MHRA’s 45-day statute of limitations had lapsed and was not tolled by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (1994). The district court agreed and granted the University’s motion. We reverse.
FACTS
In August 1995, appellants filed separate charges with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. SchachtSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Parella v. Retirement Board of the Rhode Island Employees' Retirement SystemCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- John Humenansky v. Regents of the University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- Boubelik v. Liberty State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Raygor v. Regents of the University of MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Stevens v. Arco Management of Washington D.C., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- Regents of the University of Minnesota v. RaygorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Raygor v. Regents of the University of MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Raygor v. Regents of the University of MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000