The bill amends rules on handling cases in Minnesota where an employment practice is claimed to negatively affect a specific protected group of people more than others (known as "disparate impact" cases). Under the new rules, if it is shown that an employer’s practice disproportionately impacts a protected group, the employer must prove that this practice is closely related to the job or is important for business or educational reasons. Additionally, if the employer can justify the practice, the person lodging the complaint can still win the case by showing that there is another way to achieve the same business goals that would not have as much of a negative impact on the protected group.