HF2182

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of this bill is to revise the existing Minnesota laws related to "disparate impact" cases in the context of employment, which are situations where an employer's practice has a negative impact on a certain protected class of people even if there is no intentional discrimination.

Main Provisions

• The bill outlines the conditions under which an employer must justify employment practices that result in a disparate impact on members of a protected class.
• It requires that the employer (respondent) demonstrate that the disputed practice is directly related to the job and serves an important business, governmental, or educational purpose.
• If an employer can justify the practice, the party challenging the practice (charging party) can still prevail if they can prove that there is an alternative practice available that would be equally effective but cause significantly less impact on the protected class.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• The bill refines requirements for employers to justify practices with adverse impacts by making it necessary for these practices to be significantly related to the job in question.
• It introduces a new rebuttal opportunity for the charging party to show the existence of a less harmful alternative practice that meets business needs.

Relevant Terms

• Disparate Impact
• Employment Discrimination
• Protected Class
• Justification of Practices
• Alternative Practices