SF4881

Purpose

To prevent employers from requiring or pressuring employees to have a microchip implanted and to establish a private right of action if this prohibition is violated. The bill would add a new section to Minnesota law (Minnesota Statutes chapter 181) to set this rule and remedies.

Main Provisions

• Prohibition on implantation requests
  • Employers may not request, require, or coerce an employee to have a microchip implanted for any reason.
• Private civil action for violations
  • An employee who is harmed by a violation may sue in court.
  • The court may award injunctive relief (to stop ongoing violations), actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.
• Definitions (key terms)
  • Employer: broadly defined to include individuals, firms, corporations, partnerships, and other business entities that employ one or more employees, including state institutions, state agencies, political subdivisions, and municipal corporations.
  • Employee: an individual employed by the employer or applying for employment with the employer.
  • Microchip: a device or technology implanted under the skin that contains a unique identification number and personal information that can be retrieved or transmitted with an external scanning device; excludes devices used for health-related diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, or prevention when only the necessary information is transmitted.
  • Subcutaneously: beneath the skin; excludes information attached to the skin by adhesive strips or bracelets that store personal information.
• Effective change to law
  • Creates a new section (181.771) within Minnesota Statutes to implement the prohibition and remedies.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Adds a new prohibition in Minnesota law restricting employers from implanting or requesting microchip implants for employees.
• Establishes a private civil enforcement pathway with specific remedies (injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees).
• Provides clear definitions for the terms “employer,” “employee,” “microchip,” and “subcutaneously,” including an explicit health-condition exception where health-related devices are treated differently.

Practical Impact

• Employers would be barred from pressuring workers to be chipped.
• Employees harmed by a coercive implant request could sue and seek substantial remedies.
• The law clarifies what constitutes a microchip and sets boundaries around health-related medical devices.

Relevant Terms microchip, implantation, implant, employer, employee, civil action, injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 181, subcutaneously, external scanning device, unique identification number, personal information, health condition, diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, prevention, coercion.