The bill amends Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 363A.28, subdivision 10, to modify the provisions regarding disparate impact cases in employment. It specifies that if a complaining party demonstrates that the respondent's actions have a statistically significant adverse impact on a protected class, the respondent must justify their practices by showing that they significantly further an important business, governmental, or educational purpose. Additionally, the respondent must prove that the challenged practice is manifestly related to the job for the specific position in question.

The bill also removes the previous requirement that the employer's practice be manifestly related to the job, instead focusing on the broader justification of the practice's importance. Furthermore, it allows the charging party to prevail if they can demonstrate the existence of a comparably effective practice that would result in a significantly lesser adverse impact on the identified protected class. This change aims to strengthen protections against discriminatory practices in employment while still allowing for necessary business justifications.

Statutes affected:
Introduction: 363A.28