Minneapolis Expands Civil Rights Protections: Key Changes for Employers

The Minneapolis City Council unanimously passed sweeping amendments to the City’s civil rights ordinance last Thursday, May 1^st. The amended ordinance is expected to go into effect on August 1, 2025. If you operate in Minneapolis, the amended ordinance will likely impact your hiring and employment practices.

Following a national trend in cities like New York and San Francisco, the ordinance expands employment and public-accommodation protections to individuals based on their prior arrests and convictions, housing status, height and weight, and pregnancy-related conditions. It also revises existing provisions of the ordinance to heighten protections for groups that were previously protected.

Before the new ordinance takes effect, employers are encouraged to review and update hiring and employment practices and discuss any needed changes with their background check vendors. Examples of things to consider:

• Determine whether you need to collect an address from an applicant or if alternative means of contact, such as phone or email, are sufficient
• Ensure you retain all interview notes for at least one year
• Evaluate whether any physical examination or testing you require for a position is truly related to essential job-related abilities, given the expanded protections
• Document performance-based terminations to the extent possible and communicate the reason clearly
• Revisit your interactive process to ensure you are accounting for the broader accommodations available to individuals in Minneapolis

The amended ordinance now prohibits hiring and employment discrimination based on:

Criminal History. The most notable change, which has not been the focus of media attention, is a presumptive prohibition on hiring or employment decisions based on criminal history, referred to as “justice-impacted status.” This includes any prior arrest, charge, conviction, time spent incarcerated, or probationary status. However, an employer may make a decision that is “reasonably based on” the underlying conduct of the criminal history and the requirements for the position, using the following six factors:

1. Whether the individual was convicted
2. The length of time since the alleged offense/conviction
3. The nature and severity of the crime(s)
4. The age of the individual at the time
5. Any evidence of rehabilitation
6. Any unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of either specific individuals or the public.

An employer may also comply with federal and state laws that prohibit criminal backgrounds (e.g., law enforcement and childcare positions). An arrest that does not lead to a conviction may never be considered unless the criminal matter is pending. Although Minnesota’s “ban-the-box” law already prohibits inquiring about criminal history before the interview or conditional hire stage, the ordinance creates additional risk for employers who do not adequately explain a hiring (or promotion) decision to an individual.

1. Housing Status. This is broadly defined as having or not having a “fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence.” In short, an employer cannot treat someone differently because they currently do not have housing, unless it is doing so for a reason required by state or federal law.
2. Height and Weight. These are defined as both numerical measurements and impressions of an individual’s height or weight (i.e., “tall,” “short,” “skinny,” “fat”). An employer may, as an affirmative defense, show that an individual’s height or weight prevents the individual from performing an essential function of the job and that no reasonable accommodation would allow the individual to perform the job without an undue hardship to the employer. An employer may also still have a voluntary wellness program.
3. Pregnancy-Related Limitations. These are any conditions relating to an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, even if they do not meet the requirements to be a disability. They must be accommodated like a disability (which has been expanded).

At the same time, existing provisions have been amended–and generally expanded:

Disability Discrimination and Accommodations Expanded. Disability accommodation requirements continue to apply only to employers with 15 or more full-time employees, but now include an impairment that is “episodic” or “in remission” and would impair a major life function when active.  An employer must engage in an “interactive process” with an employee who has a known disability to determine an accommodation, which presumably mirrors the process an employer should already be following under the ADA. Unlike the ADA, the ordinance states that an individual is still qualified for a position if their inability to perform an essential function is only temporary and can be reasonably accommodated.

1. Familial Status Expanded. In addition to legal or designated custody of a minor, “familial status” now includes residing with and caring for any individual who lacks the ability to meet essential requirements of self-care (i.e., vulnerable adults).
2. Race Defined. Race, which was not previously defined in the ordinance, is now explicitly defined to include traits historically associated or perceived to be associated with race, including skin, hair texture, and hair styles. This largely mirrors the state’s CROWN Act.
3. Religious Accommodations Required. Employers must accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, including practices, unless it would impose an undue hardship. This addition is most likely to arise in scheduling around religious holidays, although nothing in the ordinance requires that an employee be paid for observing the holiday.
4. Prohibited Discriminatory Practices Expanded. Benefits are now expressly included as a term and condition of employment. A discriminatory act also now occurs each time the allegedly discriminatory or unequal wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, ensuring the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights continues to have authority long after an initial decision is made.

Individuals who believe they have been discriminated against may file a complaint with the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights. The commission has the authority to order broad relief, including hiring, reinstatement, and backpay. An aggrieved individual may ultimately pursue their claim in Minnesota district court.

Minneapolis employers now face a greater risk of claims, particularly failure-to-hire and wrongful termination claims, from employees who may assert that an employer improperly considered a protected characteristic when making an employment decision. Retaining interview notes and document performance-based termination decisions is more important than ever.