Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Accommodations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves public-policy amendment stressing 'reasonable accommodation' in Minnesota Human Rights Act
Summary
The House approved Senate File 3210 with an amendment adding a public-policy statement that entities should engage in a good‑faith reasonable‑accommodation conversation; supporters said it clarifies expectations, opponents warned the language could invite litigation and ambiguity across statutory sections.
The Minnesota House on May 12 passed Senate File 3210 as amended, adding a public-policy provision that urges entities to engage in a good‑faith process when responding to requests for reasonable accommodations by people with disabilities.
Representative Hicks, the bill author, told colleagues the language does not change existing substantive rights but instead reinforces a practice of having an interactive, person‑centered accommodation conversation across employment, housing and public‑accommodation contexts. “We added the word ‘reasonable,’” Hicks said, describing the 56‑word public‑policy addition as a clarifying statement intended to ensure more consistent practice.
Rep. Nadeau sponsored an amendment that inserts statutory cross‑references and the term “reasonable” to mirror federal accommodation language; the amendment was adopted on the floor. Supporters said the change helps Department of Human Rights staff and claimants by giving policy direction without rewriting operative provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Opponents, led by Representative Niska, pressed whether the public‑policy statement would alter how courts and agencies interpret provisions such as §363.08 (employment interactive process), §363.11 (public accommodations) and §363.12 (public services). Niska argued the amendment could generate litigation to resolve ambiguities and leave schools, employers and businesses uncertain of obligations. Representative Joy, a small‑business owner, said he feared increased litigation costs and unclear compliance expectations for local enterprises.
Despite reservations, the House adopted SF 3210 as amended by a roll call of 88 yays and 42 nays. Supporters urged stakeholders to work on implementation guidance; opponents signaled they may seek clarifying statutory language in later sessions.
