SF 4573 would amend Minnesota’s Human Rights Act to create a new unfair employment practice related to the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. The bill defines artificial intelligence broadly as a machine-based system that generates predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions, and applies the prohibition to employer actions involving recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, training or apprenticeship selection, discharge, discipline, tenure, and other terms or conditions of employment.
Under the bill, an employer could not use AI in a way that has the effect of discriminating against an employee or job applicant on the basis of protected characteristics, including race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, marital status, public assistance status, familial status, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age. The bill also requires employers to provide notice to employees and applicants when AI is being used for these employment-related purposes.
The bill would expand Minnesota Statutes section 363A.08 by adding a specific AI-related employment discrimination provision, making discriminatory AI use an unfair employment practice under state law. It would also create a notice obligation for employers using AI in covered employment decisions, potentially affecting hiring systems, screening tools, performance management tools, and other automated decision-making technologies used by employers in Minnesota.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, but there are no committee transcripts, recorded votes, or amendments provided. As a result, there is no documented legislative debate or vote history here to indicate support or opposition. The bill’s caption and structure suggest a policy focus on preventing algorithmic discrimination and increasing transparency in employer use of AI.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Based on the text, likely areas of concern would include how broadly the term artificial intelligence is defined, how employers would demonstrate compliance with the anti-discrimination standard, what counts as sufficient notice to applicants and employees, and whether the bill could impose compliance burdens on employers using automated hiring or workplace tools. However, these concerns are not directly reflected in any recorded discussion or vote in the materials provided.