Provisions for disparate impact under the Human Rights Act changed.

A bill for an act

relating to human rights; changing provisions for disparate impact under the Human

Rights Act; amending Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 363A.28, subdivision 10.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 363A.28, subdivision 10, is amended to read:

Subd. 10.

Disparate impact
deleted text begin
cases in employment
deleted text end
.

deleted text begin

If the complaining party has met

its burden of showing that an employment practice is responsible for a statistically significant

adverse impact on a particular class of persons protected by section
363A.08, subdivision

2
, an employer must justify that practice by demonstrating that the practice is manifestly

related to the job or significantly furthers an important business purpose. Upon establishment

of this justification, the charging party may prevail upon demonstration of the existence of

a comparably effective practice that the court finds would cause a significantly lesser adverse

impact on the identified protected class.

deleted text end

new text begin

(a) The Minnesota Human Rights Act imposes

liability under sections 363A.08 and 363A.09 for practices that have a discriminatory effect,

regardless of intent. A practice has a discriminatory effect when the practice actually or

predictably results in a disparate impact on a particular class of persons protected by sections

363A.08 and 363A.09 or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing

patterns.

new text end

new text begin

(b) A practice predictably results in a disparate impact when there is evidence that the

practice will result in a disparate impact even though the practice has not yet been

implemented. A single person may pursue a claim based upon a practice that has disparate

impact on a group of individuals if that person has been injured by the practice. If the

commissioner or such person who may bring an action demonstrates that a group of policies

or practices results in a disparate impact, the commissioner or such person shall not be

required to demonstrate which specific policies or practices within the group results in the

disparate impact. Practices that have a discriminatory effect may still be lawful if the practice

is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory purposes and

there is no feasible alternative practice that would equally or better accomplish the identified

purpose with a less discriminatory effect.

new text end

new text begin

(c) A practice of using artificial intelligence has a discriminatory effect when the practice

actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a particular class of persons protected

by sections 363A.08 and 363A.09 or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated

housing patterns.

new text end