At a Glance
- Airlines for America (A4A) requests a judgment that Minnesota’s earned sick and safe time (ESST) law is preempted by both the Airline Deregulation Act and the Railway Labor Act.
- A4A claims that this newly revised provision could affect “hundreds if not thousands of hours accrued by each employee,” by requiring all collective bargaining agreement negotiated paid sick leave or other time off to “meet or exceed the minimum standards and requirements” of the ESST law.
- Important for all employers, the asserted negative impacts of the recent change in Minnesota’s ESST law are not limited to airline industry employers, as all Minnesota employers covered by the ESST law must comply with its requirements.
Air Transport Association of America, Inc., doing business as Airlines for America (A4A), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on December 30, 2024 (the Complaint), seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Minnesota Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry, Nicole Blissenbach, holding that Minnesota’s Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST) law is preempted by federal laws applicable to the airline industry and prohibiting enforcement of the ESST law against airline employers covered by such federal laws.
Background
A4A is a nonprofit corporation, based in Washington, D.C., which advocates on behalf of 10 federally regulated air carriers comprised of seven passenger carriers and three cargo carriers (the Airlines).
The Complaint includes two counts:
- Count I: The Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts Minnesota’s ESST law because it “has had and/or will have a ‘significant impact’ on the Airlines’ prices, routes, and/or services;” and
- Count II: The Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempts Minnesota’s ESST law because it “interferes with the collective bargaining process in numerous respects and does not qualify as a minimum labor standard.”
A4A requests a judgment against the Minnesota Labor Commissioner that Minnesota’s ESST law is preempted by both the ADA and RLA; permanent injunctive relief prohibiting enforcement against the Airlines; and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.
The majority of the factual summary and legal assertions included in the Complaint are specific to the airline industry, focusing on how Minnesota’s ESST law affects the various categories of airline industry employees, both unionized and nonunionized. Specifically, A4A claims that the ESST law will negatively impact the Airlines’ prices, routes and/or services due to increased employee absences, whether that be from taking ESST or another form of paid time off, which is consequently also affected by the ESST law. The Complaint details a wide array of employee job duties and specialties within the industry that contribute to the Airlines’ ability to successfully operate, which include but are not limited to boarding procedures, ground crew support, ticket counter employees, customer support, gate support, premium service clubs, baggage loading and unloading, plane de-icing, necessary maintenance tasks, and cargo services.
Minnesota’s ESST Law & Its Unique Challenges
While the Complaint focuses on the asserted negative effects of Minnesota’s ESST law specific to the airline industry, the Complaint highlights in several provisions a change to Minnesota’s ESST law that took effect January 1, 2025, which is relevant for any Minnesota employer.
Specifically, as of January 1, 2025, Minnesota Statutes section 181.9448, subdivision 1(a), was amended to expand the protections of the ESST law to other paid leaves (e.g., vacation leave or paid time off) that an employee may use for their own personal illness or injury, stating in part:
“All paid time off and other paid leave made available to an employee by an employer in excess of the minimum amount required in section 181.9446 for absences from work due to personal illness or injury, but not including short-term or long-term disability or other salary continuation benefits, must meet or exceed the minimum standards and requirements provided in sections 181.9445 to 181.9448, except for section 181.9446.”
A4A claims that this newly revised provision, referenced as the “Additional Leave Requirement” throughout the Complaint, could affect “hundreds if not thousands of hours accrued by each employee,” by requiring all collective bargaining agreement negotiated paid sick leave or other time off to “meet or exceed the minimum standards and requirements” of the ESST law. A4A compares this new requirement under Minnesota law against other states’ paid sick leave laws, such as Massachusetts’ and New York City’s paid sick leave laws, which limit application to a sum certain (e.g., 56 hours in New York City and 40 hours in Massachusetts). The Complaint implies that the Minnesota ESST law’s “Additional Leave Requirement” creates a greater negative impact, given its application to other paid leave provided by employers.
The Complaint also highlights another challenge to balancing compliance with Minnesota’s ESST law and an employer’s ability to curb employee absences. The ESST law prohibits all covered employers from using long-standing accountability practices, such as point-based attendance policies, to manage employee absences against legitimate business operation needs, and limits an employer’s discretion to request a doctor’s note from employees — which is only permissible if an employee is absent for more than three consecutively scheduled workdays. As A4A notes in the Complaint, employers that do not provide other paid leave (i.e., paid time off or vacation leave above the minimum requirements for sick and safe time reasons under the ESST law) do not face the burdens of Minnesota’s ESST law.
Important for all employers, the asserted negative impacts of the recent change in Minnesota’s ESST law are not limited to airline industry employers, as all Minnesota employers covered by the ESST law must comply with its requirements, including the expansion of rights for employees that took effect January 1, 2025. This means that any Minnesota employer that provides paid time off or vacation leave in excess of the statutory minimum number of ESST hours, and that allows such additional hours to be used for personal illness or injury, must allow the additional hours to be used in accordance with the same requirements and limitations that apply to the statutorily required ESST hours, other than the ESST accrual requirements, when such hours are used for any ESST-qualifying reason. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has explicitly confirmed this impact of the change in the law on its website.
What Is Next?
The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) intends on developing and publishing rules to accompany the ESST law under chapter 5200, which may provide further clarity in the application of Minn. Stat. § 181.9448, Subd. 1(a) — however, it is unclear when this will take place.
We will continue to monitor this case and any important legal developments related to Minnesota’s ESST law.
Any Minnesota employer considering changes to its paid time off or paid vacation or sick leave policies in light of the recent changes to Minnesota’s ESST law should consult with legal counsel.
