James L. Haugen v. Total Petroleum, Inc.

960 F.2d 762, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6171, 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,416, 1992 WL 66706

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 6, 1992
• Docket: 91-2498
• Status: Published

Opinion

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

James Haugen appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court 1 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.

1 . The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.