SF 3662

Introduction - 94th Legislature (2025 - 2026)

Posted on 02/20/2026 09:25 a.m.

A bill for an act
relating to human rights; changing provisions for disparate impact under the Human
Rights Act; amending Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 363A.28, subdivision 10.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 363A.28, subdivision 10, is amended to read:

Subd. 10.

Disparate impact deleted text begin cases in employment deleted text end .

deleted text begin If the complaining party has met
its burden of showing that an employment practice is responsible for a statistically significant
adverse impact on a particular class of persons protected by section 363A.08, subdivision
2, an employer must justify that practice by demonstrating that the practice is manifestly
related to the job or significantly furthers an important business purpose. Upon establishment
of this justification, the charging party may prevail upon demonstration of the existence of
a comparably effective practice that the court finds would cause a significantly lesser adverse
impact on the identified protected class. deleted text end new text begin (a) The Minnesota Human Rights Act imposes
liability under sections 363A.08 and 363A.09 for practices that have a discriminatory effect,
regardless of intent. A practice has a discriminatory effect when the practice actually or
predictably results in a disparate impact on a particular class of persons protected by sections
363A.08 and 363A.09 or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing
patterns.
new text end

new text begin (b) A practice predictably results in a disparate impact when there is evidence that the
practice will result in a disparate impact even though the practice has not yet been
implemented. A single person may pursue a claim based upon a practice that has disparate
impact on a group of individuals if that person has been injured by the practice. If the
commissioner or such person who may bring an action demonstrates that a group of policies
or practices results in a disparate impact, the commissioner or such person shall not be
required to demonstrate which specific policies or practices within the group results in the
disparate impact. Practices that have a discriminatory effect may still be lawful if the practice
is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory purposes and
there is no feasible alternative practice that would equally or better accomplish the identified
purpose with a less discriminatory effect.
new text end

new text begin (c) A practice of using artificial intelligence has a discriminatory effect when the practice
actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a particular class of persons protected
by sections 363A.08 and 363A.09 or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated
housing patterns.
new text end