Case Name: Debbie Joy WSCHOLA, Appellant, v. Margaret SNYDER, et al., Respondents
Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1991-12-10
Citations: 478 N.W.2d 225
Docket Number: No. C0-91-690
Parties: Debbie Joy WSCHOLA, Appellant, v. Margaret SNYDER, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Considered and decided by NORTON, P.J., and LANSING and SHORT, JJ.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 478
Pages: 225–229

Head Matter:
Debbie Joy WSCHOLA, Appellant, v. Margaret SNYDER, et al., Respondents.
No. C0-91-690.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
Dec. 10, 1991.
Review Denied Feb. 10, 1992.
Debra E. Schmidt, Grannis, Grannis, Hauge, Eide, Anderson & Keller, P.A., Ea-gan, for appellant.
John F. Wagner, McDonough, Vandelist & Wagner, P.A., Apple Valley, for respondents.
Considered and decided by NORTON, P.J., and LANSING and SHORT, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
LANSING, Judge.
Applying the statute of limitations in effect when Wschola's cause of action accrued, the trial court dismissed her case. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
On June 23, 1988, Margaret Snyder Flor, manager of the Farmington Eagles Club, terminated Debbie Joy Wschola from her employment as a bartender. On April 27, 1989, 308 days after she was fired, Wscho-la filed a complaint in district court alleging she was terminated because of her pregnancy, in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Effective August 1, 1988, the Minnesota Legislature increased the limitations period for the MHRA from 300 days to one year, but did not specify whether it would be applied to causes of action not yet time barred under the old statute of limitations. Applying the 300-day limitations period, the district court granted a motion to dismiss Wschola's action. Wschola appeals.
ISSUE
Does the 300-day or one-year statute of limitations apply to the complaint brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act?
ANALYSIS
Because a statute of limitations is a matter of remedy, not a matter of right, the legislature has the power to expand a limitations period for a cause of action accrued but not yet time barred. See Chase Sec. Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 314, 65 S.Ct. 1137, 1142, 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945); Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 6 S.Ct. 209, 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885). This power extends to all areas of the law. Annotation, Validity, and Applicability to Causes of Action Not Already Barred, of a Statute Enlarging Limitation Period, 79 A.L.R.2d 1080 (1963). Historically, the rule has been that an extended limitations period will apply to causes of action not yet time barred under the old limitations period. State ex rel. Donovan v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 150 Minn. 364, 185 N.W. 388 (1921) (when construction of the new statute operates as an extension and not a shortening of the limitations, the new statute controls existing claims).
In contrast to the historical rule, Minnesota Statute § 645.21 (1986) provides that "[n]o law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature." This statute was passed by the legislature in 1941, 20 years after Donovan stated the general rule applicable to extended limitations periods. In a case involving an extension of a limitations period decided two years after the enactment of § 645.21, the court did not specifically discuss or apply § 645.21, but recognized the statute's intent to apply to pending litigation. See Donaldson v. Chase Sec. Corp., 216 Minn. 269, 13 N.W.2d 1 (1943), aff'd, 325 U.S. 304, 65 S.Ct. 1137, 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945).
Since Chase, the Minnesota Supreme Court has, in workers' compensation and criminal law, construed statutes which expand a limitation but do not specify whether they affect pending but unbarred cases. The workers' compensation cases hold that the new statute of limitations applies. See Marose v. Maislin Transp., 413 N.W.2d 507 (Minn.1987); Klimmek v. Independent School Dist. No. 487, 299 N.W.2d 501 (Minn.1980). Klimmek suggests that the application of a new statute of limitations to an existing cause of action is not a retroactive application, but other cases appear to analyze this as within Minn.Stat. § 645.21. See id. at 503.
The supreme court declined to apply an expanded statute of limitations in a criminal case involving a change from a three-year to a seven-year limitation period in a criminal sexual conduct prosecution. See State v. Traczyk, 421 N.W.2d 299 (Minn.1988). The court distinguished the workers' compensation cases as relating to rights and duties in the employment relationship governed entirely by statute and historically expanded in favor of employees. Id. at 301 n. 4. In making the distinction, the court stated
[t]hat distinction justifies any departures from the general rule that has arisen involving Minn.Stat. § 645.21, but because that distinction is absent from legislation regulating criminal law, we feel constrained to not extend that exception to the interpretation of the retroactivity issue in criminal cases.
Id.
The type of relief available under the Minnesota Human Rights Act parallels remedies available under the workers' compensation statutes. Like workers' compensation laws, the Minnesota Human Rights Act governs wholly statutory rights and duties which historically have been expanded in favor of employees. The statute itself provides that it should be construed liberally to effect its purposes. Minn.Stat. § 363.11 (1986).
Moreover, although a civil defendant's repose is important, it does not receive constitutional protection. See Chase, 325 U.S. 304, 65 S.Ct. 1137. A defendant in a criminal prosecution risks a loss of liberty that implicates constitutional protections, but no such implication applies here.
Neither is there a violation of the public policy that supports statutes of limitations as practical devices to exclude state claims and protect citizens from being put to a defense after memories have faded, evidence is lost, and witnesses are unavailable. See id. at 314, 65 S.Ct. at 1142. Construing the statute to include the additional sixty-five days is unlikely to exacerbate any problems of proof. The legislative history of the act indicates that the purpose of expanding the statute of limitations related not only to the manual difficulty of counting 300 days, but also to the inequity of retaining what was in 1988 the shortest statute of limitations for any similar suit. Hearings on H.F. 2054 Before the Civil Law Subcomm. of the House Judiciary Comm., 75th Minn. Legislature, 1988 Reg.Sess. (Feb. 26, 1988) (statement of Steven Cooper, Commissioner of Minn. Dept. of Human Rights).
The policy considerations supporting the longer time period were reaffirmed by the legislature's passing a bill in 1991 expand ing the statute of limitations of this act to two years and specifically allowing it to be applied retroactively, permitting suits on existing claims over a period of three years. See S.F. 268, 77th Minn. Legislature, Reg.Sess., 1991 Minn.Laws Chap. 218. See also Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 2780, 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991) (no clearer indication of how a legislative body would have balanced the policy considerations implicit in any limitations provision than the balance struck by that body in limiting similar or related problems).
DECISION
The one-year statute of limitations applies to Wschola's cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Reversed and remanded for trial on the merits.
Reversed and remanded.