Must Minnesota Employers Give a Reason for Termination?

When Does a Minnesota Employer Have to Explain a Firing?

You must explain a firing in writing only after an involuntarily terminated employee asks for the reason in writing within the statute’s request window. Until a timely written request arrives, § 181.933 does not require you to state a reason. Here is the full text of Minn. Stat. § 181.933, subd. 1:

“An employee who has been involuntarily terminated may, within 15 working days following such termination, request in writing that the employer inform the employee of the reason for the termination. Within ten working days following receipt of such request, an employer shall inform the terminated employee in writing of the truthful reason for the termination.”

Four conditions sit in that text. The employee was terminated involuntarily, the request is in writing, the request is on time, and your answer must be in writing and truthful. The answer period counts from your “receipt” of the request, so the clock starts when the request reaches you. Check the current text of § 181.933 before relying on those windows.

The statute reaches any business with even one employee in Minnesota. Under Minn. Stat. § 181.931, subd. 3, an employer is any person “having one or more employees in Minnesota.” Subdivision 2 defines a covered employee as a person who “performs services for hire in Minnesota for an employer” and excludes independent contractors.

One more point affects whether the reason matters for the firing itself. In Lewis, the court concluded that a handbook’s dismissal language was “definite enough to permit a jury to conclude that plaintiffs received certain contractual rights.” If your handbook promises warnings, steps, or cause before a discharge, the reason you state may be measured against that promise. The limits on firing an at-will employee explain the other exceptions.

What Does the Truthful Reason Statement Have to Say?

The statement must give the real reason you ended the employment, in writing. Beyond requiring writing, the statute sets no length or level of detail. Two clear sentences can satisfy it, if they state what actually drove the decision.

At-will status is not a reason. I once analyzed an HR draft answering a request under § 181.933 that said only that the employment had been at will. That letter would not have answered the request. At-will status is your right to end the employment; the statute asks the separate question of why you made the decision.

In that matter, I gave the employer three principles for the wording:

1. The statement should give only the reason that drove the decision. The statute asks for “the truthful reason for the termination,” and facts learned after the decision were not that reason.
2. The statement should give the reason and stop. The statute asks for a reason, not a defense brief or a full performance history.
3. The statement should describe what happened without softening it. A gentler reason that is not quite true fails the statute’s “truthful” requirement and can contradict your own records later.

An example of a short statement reads: Your employment ended because you did not meet the attendance requirements in our written policy after the two written warnings you received. Your own facts control the wording, and the reason must be the one your managers actually relied on.

How Should You Word the Reason So It Holds Up?

The reason should be accurate in its details, specific enough to identify the conduct, and the same reason you gave in the termination meeting. A Minnesota case shows what happens when a termination letter overstates the facts.

In Kuechle v. Life’s Companion P.C.A., Inc., 653 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. App. 2002), the employer fired a nurse without talking with her first. Its termination letter said she disobeyed a direct order and abandoned a vulnerable client. Witnesses testified that her supervisor had made a request, not given an order. The Court of Appeals said that difference was “greater than a minor inaccuracy” and affirmed the defamation judgment for the nurse.

The same court rejected the employer’s privilege defense because the employer “did not conduct a thorough investigation, failed to interview respondent, and ignored the supervisor’s statement that she made a request, rather than gave a direct order.” It concluded: “Because of the cursory nature of appellants’ actions, we conclude the district court properly found they are not entitled to a privilege.” Two lessons follow for your letter:

1. The verb should match the conduct. Did not complete and refused describe different conduct, and so do asked and ordered.
2. You should hear the employee’s side before deciding when the facts are disputed. In Kuechle, the failure to interview the nurse was one of the three failures the court named in denying the privilege.

Consistency matters as much as accuracy. The employee will compare your letter to what was said in the termination meeting. I suggest writing the reason down before the meeting and using the same words in both places, because a reason that changes between the meeting and the letter invites the argument that neither one is true.

How Does Minnesota Law Limit Defamation Claims Over the Statement?

Minnesota bars the employee from suing you for defamation based on the statement you furnish to the employee under subdivision 1. Minn. Stat. § 181.933, subd. 2 reads: “No communication of the statement furnished by the employer to the employee under subdivision 1 may be made the subject of any action for libel, slander, or defamation by the employee against the employer.” In LeBaron v. Minnesota Board of Public Defense, 499 N.W.2d 39 (Minn. App. 1993), where both parties admitted they “failed to follow the timing requirements of Minn. Stat. § 181.933,” the Court of Appeals concluded that “no absolute privilege can flow from that statute to protect the employer from liability for defamation.”

That protection matters because of a Minnesota doctrine called compelled self-publication. Defamation normally requires that the employer tell someone else. In Lewis, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that “the publication requirement may be satisfied where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled.” A fired employee who must repeat the reason to prospective employers can meet that test.

Lewis also concluded that “an employer’s communication to an employee of the reason for discharge may present a proper occasion upon which to recognize a qualified privilege,” and it said the doctrine “should be cautiously applied.” In Kuechle, the employer sent a termination letter, was held not entitled to a privilege, and the defamation judgment stood.

Subdivision 2 names only actions “for libel, slander, or defamation.” It does not mention discrimination, retaliation, or contract claims, so accuracy still matters more than tone. A separate page covers employer defamation liability in Minnesota more broadly.

What Happens If You Miss the Deadline or Never Answer?

The statute’s only stated penalty for a missing or late answer applies when the employee was also the victim of whistleblower retaliation. Under Minn. Stat. § 181.935, paragraph (b), “An employer who failed to notify, as required under section 181.933 or 181.934, an employee injured by a violation of section 181.932 is subject to a civil penalty of $25 per day per injured employee not to exceed $750 per injured employee.”

The Minnesota Court of Appeals applied that text in Laliberte v. Dollar Tree, Inc., No. A22-1031 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2023) (precedential). The former employee there sued only over a late answer and disclaimed any whistleblower claim. The court held that the employer was subject to the civil penalty only if the employee who requested the reason had been injured by a violation of § 181.932, and the former employee claimed no such injury.

The whistleblower statute is where the larger exposure sits. Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1, bars an employer from discharging or otherwise retaliating against an employee because, among other protected acts, the employee in good faith “reports a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of any federal or state law or common law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official,” or refuses an order the employee has “an objective basis in fact to believe violates any state or federal law or rule or regulation adopted pursuant to law,” and tells the employer why.

An employee injured by a violation “may bring a civil action to recover any and all damages recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney’s fees,” under § 181.935, paragraph (a). Paragraph (c) adds remedies that include “reinstatement, back pay,” and “compensatory damages.” The penalty for a missed answer is small next to those remedies, but I suggest answering every timely request on time, because an unanswered request makes the employer look like it has no reason to give. Timing also matters for the defamation bar: LeBaron found no absolute privilege could flow from § 181.933 where both parties admitted missing its timing requirements. If the employee had reported a possible violation before the firing, the page on firing an employee who has reported a violation covers that risk.

Why Does the Stated Reason Matter in a Discrimination or Retaliation Claim?

Your written reason becomes your explanation for the firing, and a reason that turns out to be false can be evidence of discrimination. Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 2, it is an unfair employment practice for an employer, “because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, familial status, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age,” to “discharge an employee.” The one exception in that subdivision is a decision “based on a bona fide occupational qualification.”

The U.S. Supreme Court explained the stakes in an age-discrimination case under federal law. In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), it explained: “In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose.” The Court added that this showing will not “always be adequate to sustain a jury’s finding of liability.”

The stated reason matters in a retaliation claim too. Minn. Stat. § 363A.15 bars reprisal against a person who “opposed a practice forbidden under this chapter or has filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.” In Kuechle, the nurse had filed a disability discrimination claim weeks before the firing. Applying the predecessor reprisal statute, the court held that the trial court “did not err in finding that appellants’ given reason for terminating respondent was pretextual.”

A true, documented reason is strong evidence for you in these claims, and a reason shown to be false can work against you.

How Does the Reason Carry Into an Unemployment Claim?

The unemployment process asks the same question, why the job ended, and your answer there should match your letter. Under Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 1, “each applicant must report the name and the reason for no longer working for the applicant’s most recent employer.” If the reported reason is other than a layoff for lack of work, the statute says that “raises an issue of ineligibility that the department must determine.”

When you respond, subdivision 2 requires that “A communication from an employer must specifically set out why the applicant should be determined ineligible for unemployment benefits for that communication to be considered to have raised an issue of ineligibility for purposes of this section.”

Firing alone does not disqualify the employee. Under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4, a discharged applicant is ineligible “only if” the discharge was “because of employment misconduct” or because of “aggravated employment misconduct.” Subdivision 6 defines employment misconduct as conduct “that is a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee.” The same subdivision excludes “conduct that was a consequence of the applicant’s inefficiency or inadvertence” and “simple unsatisfactory conduct.”

That definition creates a temptation. A performance reason may not disqualify the employee, so an employer contesting benefits may describe the firing as misconduct instead. Under Minn. Stat. § 268.184, subd. 1, an employer’s false statement made “without a good faith belief as to correctness” to “prevent or reduce the payment of unemployment benefits” draws a penalty the commissioner “must” impose, “the greater of $500 or 100 percent of” the benefits that “would otherwise have been paid.” Minnesota also limits where the unemployment record goes. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 5(b) provides: “Testimony obtained at a hearing may not be used or considered for any purpose, including impeachment, in any civil, administrative, or contractual proceeding, except by a local, state, or federal human rights agency with enforcement powers, unless the proceeding is initiated by the department.” An unemployment law judge’s findings may not be “used as evidence in any separate or subsequent action in any other forum, be it contractual, administrative, or judicial, except proceedings provided for under this chapter,” under subdivision 5a. I suggest giving the unemployment office the same reason as your letter, because a statement made without a good faith belief in its correctness can draw that penalty, and the subdivision 5(b) exception lets a human rights agency with enforcement powers use the hearing testimony. The defenses that do apply are covered on a page about defending an unemployment claim.

What Can You Tell a Prospective Employer About the Reason?

You may give a prospective employer the written reason for separation, with limited liability, if the former employee authorizes it in writing and you send the employee a copy. Minn. Stat. § 181.967, subd. 3, paragraph (b), extends the statute’s protection to “written reasons for separation from employment” disclosed by a private employer “With the written authorization of the current or former employee.”

The same paragraph requires that “The employer must contemporaneously provide the employee or former employee with a copy of information disclosed under this paragraph and to whom it was disclosed by mailing the information to the employee or former employee.”

When those conditions are met, subdivision 2 bars the employee’s action unless the employee “demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence” that “the information was false and defamatory” and that “the employer knew or should have known the information was false and acted with malicious intent to injure the current or former employee.” The protection has a stated limit: subdivision 6 provides that “This section does not apply to an action involving an alleged violation of chapter 363 or other statute.” I suggest sending the same statement you gave under § 181.933, because a second version invites a comparison. More on employment references after a contested firing is on a separate page.

How Should You Prepare Before a Request Arrives?

I suggest preparing the reason when you make the decision, because a request may arrive weeks after the termination, sometimes from an attorney, and the answer period runs from receipt. These steps keep the answer quick and consistent:

1. I suggest writing the reason down when you make the decision. A record of the facts the decision-makers relied on, with dates and documents, is what supports the statement later.
2. I suggest using the same reason in the meeting and in any letter. If you decide whether to hand over a termination letter at the meeting, its reason should be identical to the one you would give on request, because the employee will compare the two.
3. I suggest routing every written request to one person. An email or an attorney’s letter should be treated as a written request, because the statute names no particular form.
4. I suggest dating the statement the day it goes out. In the matter I described above, I advised the employer to date its letter the day it was sent rather than the day of the firing, so that the employee could not argue the record was backdated.
5. I suggest writing the statement knowing it will travel. Minnesota’s personnel record definition in Minn. Stat. § 181.960, subd. 4 includes “notices of commendation, warning, discipline, or termination,” and Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 2, requires that “upon the employee’s written request, the employer shall provide a copy of the personnel record to the employee” after separation. Under Minn. Stat. § 181.960, subd. 2, the term “employee” there covers services “performed predominately within this state” and “includes any person who has been separated from employment for less than one year.”

A request for the reason may arrive alongside a personnel file request, which has its own deadline.

Answering a Reason Request With Confidence

A Minnesota business can fire an at-will employee without stating a reason, but once a timely written request arrives, the truthful reason must go out in writing. I suggest keeping it short, accurate, and identical to what you said in the termination meeting, because a reason that changes between the meeting and the letter invites the argument that neither one is true. The same reason should go to the unemployment office, where a false statement made without a good faith belief in its correctness to prevent or reduce benefits draws a penalty, and whose hearing testimony a human rights agency with enforcement powers may still use.

My Minnesota employment law page covers other termination questions. If you would like me to analyze a reason statement before it goes out, email [email protected] with a brief description of the termination and the request you received, and I can tell you whether the statement answers the request and matches your records.