Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
July 29, 2025
Minneapolis has amended its Civil Rights Ordinance (“Ordinance”) to add protected classes, increase enforcement of current protections, and revise procedures. The Ordinance encourages employers to assess employees and applicants based on their qualifications and abilities, rather than on factors unrelated to job performance.[1] The amendments are effective on August 1, 2025. See Ordinance No. 2025-22.
New Protected Classes
The amendment adds three new protected classes to the Ordinance: justice-impacted status, housing status, and height and weight.
Justice-Impacted Status
“Justice-impacted status” means having a criminal record or history, including arrests, charges, convictions, incarceration, or probation.
Employers will be required to conduct individualized assessments[2] when considering an applicant’s criminal history and must ensure that any adverse employment actions are reasonably related to the job duties.
Moreover, employers may not make an adverse employment decision based on an arrest that did not result in a conviction, except that for pending criminal matters, an employer is not prohibited from making an adverse employment decision based on a reasonable consideration of the factors listed in footnote 2.
Employers are not prohibited from making an adverse employment decision, or printing or publishing a notice or advertisement for employment that discloses a preference or limitation, based on justice-impacted status when permitted by law, including, but not limited to positions that involve work with children and positions in law enforcement.
Housing Status
“Housing status” means having or not having a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.
Height and Weight
With respect to height and weight, the Ordinance now prohibits discrimination based on numerical measurements of height, weight, or size, as well as impressions of height, weight, or size (for example – fat, thin, tall, short).[3]
New or Updated Definitions
Disability
The amended Ordinance updates the definition of “disability.” Currently, “disability” is defined as any condition or characteristic that causes a person to become a person with a disability. A “person with a disability” is any person who: (1) has a physical, sensory, or mental impairment which materially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a record of such an impairment; or (3) is perceived as having such an impairment.
The amendments add a fourth definition of “person with a disability” to include a person who has an impairment that is episodic or in remission and would materially limit a major life activity when active.
In addition, the amendments include “known pregnancy-related limitations.” They are defined as any physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that the employee or employee’s representative has communicated to the employer, regardless of whether such condition meets the definition of “disability.”
Familial Status
Currently, the Ordinance defines “familial status” as the condition of one or more minors residing with (1) their parent or parents or the minor’s legal guardian or (2) the designee of the parent or parents or guardian with the written permission of the parent or parents or guardian.
The amendment will change this definition to “the condition of having legal status or custody of one or more minors” with the written permission of the parent(s) or guardian(s).
“Familial status” also will mean residing with and caring for one or more individuals who lack the ability to meet essential requirements for physical health, safety, or self-care because the individual or individuals are unable to receive and evaluate information or make or communicate decisions.
Race
“Race” will be defined as being inclusive of traits historically associated or perceived to be associated with race, including, but not limited to, skin color, certain physical features, hair texture, and protective hairstyles. For purposes of this definition, “protective hairstyles” includes, but is not limited to, such hairstyles as afros, braids, locks, and twists.
New Requirements
The amended Ordinance will require reasonable accommodations[4] – not just for known physical or mental limitations of a qualified person with a disability – but also for the known pregnancy-related limitations of a qualified employee[5] – unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.
In addition, employers must accommodate an employee’s known sincerely-held religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.
The Ordinance will redefine undue hardship as a situation requiring significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of a number of factors, determined on a case-by-case basis and specific to the area of discrimination (new qualifier in bold).
Key Procedural Changes
The amended Ordinance provides a new procedure on appeal if the Director of the Civil Rights Commission makes a finding of no probable cause. Currently, in such a scenario, the Chairperson of the Commission designates three members of the Commission, at least two of whom are lawyers, to review the Director’s determination. Upon request, a party is permitted to make a presentation to the reviewing members of the Commission.
The amended Ordinance will require that only one of the Commission members is a lawyer. The members will uphold the Director’s determination unless they find it to be clearly erroneous. Unless the presiding Commissioner determines that newly discovered, material evidence exists that could not have been presented earlier, no party may make a presentation to the reviewing members. The Commission members must render a decision on the appeal in 90 days.
The amendments will now also allow a complainant to bring a civil action in court within 90 days of the dismissal of a complaint. Current law gives complainant’s only 45 days to file.
Employer Takeaways
Employers in Minneapolis, including their human resource professionals and managers, should review the Ordinance in advance of its August 1, 2025, effective date and update employment policies and procedures to ensure compliance.
The author of this article, Patricia Tsipras, is a member of the Bar of Pennsylvania. This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, or any other jurisdiction, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with any reader of the article where one does not exist. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
[1] Certain exceptions to these amendments exist for educational institutions, some professional organizations, and as the law requires.
[2] Employers will have to weigh the following factors: (1) whether the individual was convicted of the offense; (2) the length of time since the alleged offense or conviction; (3) the nature and gravity of the crime(s); (4) the age of the employee at the time the crime(s) was committed; (5) any evidence of rehabilitation efforts offered in support of the employee; and (6) any unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.
[3] For employers, it is an affirmative defense that an individual’s height or weight prevents them from performing the essential functions of the job, and no accommodation exists that the employer reasonably could make that would allow the person to perform the essential functions of the job without (1) placing an undue hardship upon the employer; or (2) fundamentally altering the essential nature of the employer’s programs or services; or (3) posing a direct threat to the health and/or safety of the individual or others.
[4] To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, the employer must initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified employee. This process should identify the limitations affecting the qualified employee and any potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.
[5] A “qualified employee” means an employee or applicant who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position, except that an employee or applicant will be considered qualified if their inability to perform an essential function is for a temporary period; they will be able to perform the essential function in the near future; and their inability to perform the essential function can be reasonably accommodated.
