Minnesota Department of Human Rights briefs committee on civil‑rights history, investigations, contractor portal and budget

Rebecca Lucero, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, told the House Judiciary and Civil Law Committee that the agency enforces the Minnesota Human Rights Act, investigates discrimination complaints statewide, operates a mediation program and is seeking a modest operating increase to cover rising personnel and IT costs.

"Minnesota legislators first demonstrated their commitment to civil rights when the Minnesota Constitution was ratified," Lucero said during her presentation, tracing state anti‑discrimination laws from the 19th century Equal Accommodation Act through the 1967 statute that created MDHR and later expansions (including protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in 1993 and recent additions for intermittent health conditions in 2024).

Lucero told members that MDHR handles complaints in four main areas—employment, housing, places of public accommodation and schools—and that employment cases make up about half of the agency’s caseload. She described the department’s intake and investigation process, mediation options and the statutory frame under which it issues probable‑cause findings and enforces remedies.

MDHR highlighted several recent high‑profile matters presented to the committee: a consent decree with the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department following a pattern‑or‑practice finding of race‑based policing; a settlement and consent decree in a McDonald’s franchise case involving sexual assault of a minor; and a Pine City Public Schools matter in which investigators found prolonged racial harassment of a seventh‑grade student.

Lucero also outlined a contractor portal MDHR is building to streamline workforce and equal‑pay certificate submissions for vendors that contract with state and local agencies. The portal is intended to simplify forms for roughly 3,500 vendors and reduce administrative burdens; Lucero said it is on track for testing this summer and possible launch by year‑end.

On budget, Lucero said MDHR is primarily a personnel‑funded agency and that the governor’s request seeks a modest inflationary/operating increase (described in testimony as a roughly 2.5 percent adjustment) to cover IT and health‑care cost increases. Committee questions probed staffing levels and IT costs: Representative Matt Bliss read numbers from his materials and the commissioner corrected an FTE figure, saying the 30‑FTE figure cited by the representative was incorrect and that the agency’s staff total is closer to 60; Lucero offered to follow up with detailed IT cost figures.

Committee members also asked about the agency’s prior work on a bias registry and related legislative funds. Lucero said the agency produced a legislative report as required and would provide the committee exact accounting for the appropriation but said much of the originally appropriated money will not be spent for the registry and that most funds are being returned; she offered to provide exact amounts in follow‑up.

On caseload statistics, Lucero told the committee the agency receives roughly 1,100 complaints in the most recent reporting year and that case closures in the cited reporting period included mediations (about 40 cases in the sample), approximately 53 percent of determinations favorable to respondents, and about 20 percent favorable to charging parties; another roughly 20 percent of matters were withdrawn.

Members asked how federal developments might affect MDHR’s work. Lucero said the department is reviewing recent federal executive actions and will determine any impact; meanwhile, MDHR continues its statutorily required work. Several members praised MDHR’s mediation work and its focus on prevention and workplace accommodations.

The committee concluded the MDHR portion of the hearing without a formal vote; members requested follow‑up on IT costs, precise FTE counts and accounting for prior appropriations.