Search form

Minneapolis and Saint Paul Sick and Safe Leave Ordinances Effective July 1

By Gina K. Janeiro and Richard Greiffenstein
  • June 7, 2017

The Minneapolis Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance and the Saint Paul Earned Sick and Safe Time Ordinance will go into effect on July 1, 2017, as scheduled.

On May 30, 2017, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton vetoed the state preemption bill passed by the Minnesota legislature. The bill would have prevented local governments from adopting their own wage and benefit ordinances, such as the paid sick and safe leave ordinances passed by Minneapolis and Saint Paul. (For more on the bill, see our article, Preliminary Rules Released for Minneapolis and Saint Paul Sick Leave Ordinances.)

The Minneapolis and Saint Paul sick and safe time ordinances will be enforced only against employers residing within the respective cities — at least for now. The Hennepin County District Court’s temporary injunction prohibiting the City of Minneapolis from enforcing its ordinance against employers residing outside of the city is on appeal, with oral argument scheduled for July 11, 2017. The City of Saint Paul has confirmed that it would enforce its ordinance only against employers physically located within the City. Employers should monitor developments as the scope of the ordinances may change.

The City of Minneapolis and the City of Saint Paul have provided preliminary rules, answers to frequently asked questions, workplace posters, and other resources to help employers determine if they are covered by the ordinances, as well as to track the accrual of employee leave.

It is important for affected employers to review their current paid time off (PTO) and sick leave policies to determine compliance with the ordinances in their current form, as well as update their employee handbooks with the notice provisions required by the ordinances.

Jackson Lewis attorneys routinely work with employers throughout Minneapolis and Saint Paul on legal compliance and implementation strategies, including the many nuances of these leave requirements.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 21, 2018

Construction Safety: Opioid Crisis

September 21, 2018

When the White House declared the country in an opioid-addiction crisis back in October 2017, it was not news to the construction industry. Job site hazards and strenuous activity mean that pain disproportionately afflicts construction workers, making them more susceptible to substance abuse, says the Itasca, Illinois-based National... Read More

September 20, 2018

New Jersey Department of Labor Releases Proposed Paid Sick Leave Regulations

September 20, 2018

Proposed regulations on the New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Act (NJPSLA) were released by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL) on September 18, 2018. The NJPSLA will go into effect on October 29, 2018. The proposed Regulations address some questions created by the Act, but leave others unanswered. Written... Read More

September 6, 2018

Refusing to Hire Medical Marijuana User Violates State Law, Connecticut Court Holds

September 6, 2018

Refusing to hire a medical marijuana user because she tested positive on a pre-employment drug test violates Connecticut’s medical marijuana law, a federal court in Connecticut has held, granting summary judgment to the job applicant on her employment discrimination claim. Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, d/b/a Bride Brook... Read More