Limits for contact tracing, digital contract tracing, immunizations, communicable disease testing, and the required disclosure of certain information established; destruction of certain data required; mandatory digital contact tracing by employers prohibited; and civil penalties provided.
HF394 would place significant limits on how state and local governments, as well as employers, can use contact tracing and disease-related screening tools. The bill prohibits the commissioner of health and local health departments from requiring a contagious person to participate in contact tracing, restricts the collection of location or proximity data for digital contact tracing, and requires destruction of certain communicable disease report data within 90 days, or 30 days after an active investigation or tracing effort ends.
The bill also bars state agencies and local governments from requiring immunizations, proof of immunization, negative test results, or testing as a condition of entering a government building, conducting government business, or participating in a government function, unless a person voluntarily consents or another law provides otherwise. It further prohibits requiring people to possess, wear, or display any symbol or card showing test results or antibody status. In employment, the bill forbids employers and employment agencies from requiring workers to install or activate digital contact tracing apps, provide location or proximity data, or suffer adverse employment consequences for refusing to do so. It also prohibits employers from using such data to assess disease exposure risk, while preserving lawful workplace policies unrelated to contact tracing and policies to prevent contagious employees from exposing others.
The bill would create new sections in Minnesota Statutes chapters 144, 145, and 181, and it would add civil remedies for employees or other aggrieved persons harmed by violations of the employment-related provisions. Available bill context shows no recorded committee discussion or votes, so there is no formal legislative record here indicating amendments, support, or opposition at the committee stage.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at protecting personal privacy, bodily autonomy, and employment rights in the context of public health measures. Its practical effect would be to narrow the authority of public health agencies, local governments, and employers to mandate disease-related data collection, testing, immunization proof, and digital tracking, while still allowing voluntary participation and certain lawful workplace safety policies. The main point of contention is likely the balance between public health surveillance and individual privacy/consent, especially during communicable disease outbreaks.
The bill would add new statutory limits in Minnesota law governing communicable disease response, immunization requirements, and workplace use of digital contact tracing. It would require destruction of certain disease-report data, prohibit mandatory digital contact tracing by government and employers, restrict collection and use of location/proximity data, and create a private right of action with damages and injunctive relief for violations. It would also constrain state and local government authority to require immunization, testing, or proof of health status as a condition of accessing government services or facilities.
No committee transcripts or votes are available in the provided record, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed in a privacy- and consent-protective way, suggesting support from members concerned about government overreach and employer surveillance, while likely drawing skepticism from those prioritizing public health tools and outbreak management. The absence of recorded action makes the overall sentiment difficult to gauge beyond the bill’s clear policy orientation.
The central contention is between public health authorities’ ability to use contact tracing, testing, and immunization verification to manage communicable disease and the bill’s restrictions designed to protect privacy and voluntary participation. Opponents would likely focus on the limits placed on the commissioner of health, local health departments, and employers, arguing they could hamper outbreak response and workplace safety. Supporters would likely emphasize consent, data minimization, and protection against compelled disclosure or tracking. The bill preserves some employer authority to prevent contagious employees from exposing others, which may address some concerns but does not resolve the broader dispute over mandatory data collection and digital tracing.