JAMES L. HAUGEN, APPELLANT,
v.
TOTAL PETROLEUM, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of the statute of limitations in light of a subsequent state court decision.
Plaintiff filed a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The district court dismissed the claim as barred by the statute of limitations in effect…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactive Application Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
James Haugen appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court1 for the District of Minnesota dismissing his claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1 (1991), as barred by the statute of limitations. Haugen v. Total Petroleum, Inc., No. 4-91-21 (D.Minn. May 23, 1991).
The sole issue in this appeal is which statute of limitations should apply: the 300-day statute of limitations in effect when the alleged discriminatory practice occurred, Minn.Stat. § 363.06, subd. 3 (1986), or the one-year statute of limitations which became effective one month after the alleged discriminatory practice occurred, Minn.Stat. § 363.06, subd. 3 (1991).
There is no dispute that Haugen’s action was filed within the one-year statute of limitations. Since the district court’s decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has decided that the new one-year statute of limitations should be applied retroactively. Wschola v. Snyder, 478 N.W. 2d 225 (Minn.Ct.App.1991), rev. denied, No. CO-91-690 (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992).
We therefore reverse and remand this case to the district court for reconsideration in light of Wscho-la v. Snyder and, if the district court decides that Haugen’s action is not time-barred, for further proceedings. If the district court determines that Wschola v. Snyder is not applicable and therefore Haugen’s action is time-barred, then the district court will certify its results to this court which retains jurisdiction over the appeal.
. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.