Minneapolis Overhauls Civil Rights Law: What Employers Must Know
Minneapolis employers face new civil rights requirements starting August 1, 2025, under an expanded city ordinance. The law adds protections for individuals with criminal histories, housing instability, and nontraditional body types. Employers must now review their hiring practices, especially regarding criminal background checks, to ensure compliance.
Minneapolis employers must prepare for sweeping new civil rights obligations taking effect August 1, 2025. With protections extending to individuals with criminal histories, unstable housing, or nontraditional body types, the city’s latest ordinance makes inclusive hiring a legal mandate.
The amended Minneapolis Civil Rights Ordinance, No. 2025-022, significantly broadens protections for job seekers, employees, students, tenants, and others who interact with institutions operating in the city. For employers, the most consequential change may be the addition of “justice-impacted status” to the list of protected classes, prompting a fresh look at how criminal background checks are used in hiring.
A New Chapter in Civil Rights Law
The amendments to Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Chapter 139 expand the city’s civil rights protections across a wide spectrum of activities, ranging from employment and education to lending, housing, and public accommodations. For employers, the most notable changes include:
Justice-impacted status: Now defined as having a criminal record or history, including arrests, charges, convictions, incarceration, or probation, whether resolved or pending.
Housing status: Whether or not an individual has a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.
Height and weight: Both actual and perceived traits, like being considered “short,” “tall,” “overweight,” or “underweight,” and numerical measures like BMI or body-fat percentage.
These new classifications join an already expansive list of protected characteristics, which includes race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and familial status. The ordinance now prohibits discrimination in application, hiring, training, benefits, compensation, promotion, and discharge, and even extends protection to decision-making influenced in part by a protected trait.
Justice-Impacted Status: A New Standard for Criminal History Use
Perhaps the most significant change for employers is the ordinance’s treatment of justice-impacted status, a novel term created by the Minneapolis City Council. For the first time in Minnesota, a local law prohibits adverse employment actions based solely on a candidate’s or employee’s criminal history, unless the employer can demonstrate that the history is reasonably related to the duties of the position.
This means employers may not automatically reject applicants or discharge employees due to arrests or convictions. Instead, they must conduct an individualized assessment, considering six factors:
Whether the individual was convicted.
The time elapsed since the offense or conviction.
The nature and gravity of the offense.
The individual’s age at the time of the offense.
Evidence of rehabilitation.
Whether the individual poses an unreasonable risk to property or the safety of others.
Importantly, arrests alone cannot be the basis for adverse action. However, employers may evaluate the facts surrounding a pending charge or dismissed case and apply the six-factor analysis to determine whether adverse action is warranted.
Ban-the-Box and Beyond: A Two-Step Compliance Model
Employers hiring into Minneapolis must now follow a two-step approach when evaluating criminal history.
Step one is timing. Under Minnesota’s “ban-the-box” law (Minn. Stat. § 364.021), private employers may not inquire into or consider a candidate’s criminal history until the applicant has been selected for an interview, or, if no interview occurs, until after a conditional job offer has been made. This law has been in place since 2014 and applies statewide, with exceptions for roles where background checks are mandated by statute.
Step two is substance. Once criminal history is lawfully obtained, Minneapolis’s new ordinance applies, requiring an individualized assessment. Simply complying with state law is no longer sufficient. Minneapolis employers must now justify adverse decisions under a local legal standard requiring an individualized assessment.
Together, these laws create a layered compliance framework: the state dictates when you can ask about criminal records; the city dictates how you must use them.
Alignment with EEOC Guidance
The ordinance closely tracks the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) 2012 guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records under Title VII. That guidance similarly discourages blanket exclusions and encourages individualized assessments that consider the nature of the offense, its recency, and its relevance to the job.
Although EEOC guidance does not carry the force of law, its framework has informed civil rights legislation across the country, and Minneapolis’s ordinance has codified these best practices as enforceable legal mandates.
New Protections Against Body Size Discrimination
For the first time in Minneapolis, employers are now prohibited from discriminating against job applicants or employees based on height or weight. These protections extend beyond objective measurements to include perceived characteristics, such as being considered too short, too tall, too heavy, or too thin. The ordinance recognizes that body size bias, while often unspoken, can significantly shape employment decisions and workplace culture.
Employers may assert a narrow affirmative defense if height or weight prevents someone from performing essential job functions, and no reasonable accommodation is available. This requires documented, case-specific analysis, not assumptions.
Organizations should update job descriptions, reassess accommodation protocols, and train decision-makers to avoid biased reasoning tied to appearance, uniform policies, or health programs.
Housing Status: Removing Bias from Residency Assumptions
The ordinance bars employment discrimination based on housing status. Applicants experiencing homelessness or unstable housing may not be disqualified due to lack of a permanent address.
Employers must avoid using housing status, such as listing a shelter or motel, as a proxy for professionalism or reliability. Screening tools that flag ZIP codes or address history should be evaluated to prevent inadvertent bias.
This provision reinforces a central civil rights tenet: opportunity should depend on qualifications, not living conditions.
Expanded Accommodation Duties for Pregnancy and Religion
In addition to anti-discrimination provisions, the amended ordinance heightens employers’ responsibilities to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related limitations and sincerely held religious beliefs.
Employers may not require pregnant workers to take leave if accommodations would allow them to continue working. They must also engage in a good faith interactive process, denying requests only when they would cause undue hardship.
Religious practices must be accommodated unless doing so imposes a significant burden. The updated language mirrors national trends toward more individualized, evidence-based accommodation decisions.
Refinements to Existing Protections
The ordinance also updates definitions of existing protected characteristics. “Race” now includes traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles like braids, locks, and twists. “Familial status” extends to individuals caring for someone unable to manage their own physical health or make independent decisions. “Disability” now includes impairments that are episodic or in remission, provided they would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
Revised Enforcement Procedures
Employers should also note changes to how the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) handles complaints. If MDCR finds no probable cause, the complainant may now appeal the decision to a three-person review panel, which must include one licensed attorney. The panel may reverse MDCR’s decision only if it finds the ruling was “clearly erroneous.”
In addition, MDCR may no longer dismiss a charge based on lack of evidence or the “interests of justice,” suggesting a greater likelihood that charges will proceed to investigation.
What Employers Should Do Now
With the ordinance taking effect on August 1, 2025, now is the time for employers to prepare:
Update job applications and hiring workflows to ensure compliance with both Minnesota’s ban the box law
and the new ordinance.
on individualized assessments, accommodation duties, and the broader scope of protected traits.
Coordinate with legal, compliance, and talent acquisition teams to review high-risk decisions, especially those involving criminal history or protected traits newly covered under the ordinance.
Employers doing business in Minneapolis, or with remote employees working from within the city, should view these changes as a call to action. Through Ordinance No. 2025-022, the City Council has made it clear that inclusive hiring is no longer aspirational. It is a compliance imperative.
Release Date: June 17, 2025
Alonzo Martinez
Alonzo Martinez is Associate General Counsel at HireRight, where he supports the company’s compliance, legal research, and thought leadership initiatives in the background screening industry. As a senior contributor at Forbes, Alonzo writes on employment legislation, criminal history reform, pay equity, AI discrimination laws, and the impact of legalized cannabis on employers. Recognized as an industry influencer, he shares insights through his weekly video updates, media appearances, podcasts, and HireRight's compliance webinar series. Alonzo's commitment to advancing industry knowledge ensures HireRight remains at the forefront of creating actionable compliance content.