Since its introduction to Minnesota cities, mandatory sick and/or safe leave for businesses within those cities has apparently been a thorn in the side of those businesses that they are desperate to remove.  The City of Minneapolis’s sick and safe leave ordinance has made an appearance in the Minnesota Supreme Court on multiple occasions now under challenges from multiple business owners.  The latest decision regarding a challenge to the city’s ordinance was recently published by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

In Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. City of Minneapolis, business owners made two separate challenges to the city’s ordinance.  The first was that the ordinance posed an irreconcilable conflict with state law.  The second was that the ordinance violated the extraterritoriality doctrine, in that it impacted parties outside Minneapolis area, over which the City holds no authority.

As a reminder, Minneapolis’s sick and safe ordinance requires that employees who work in the city for at least 80 hours a year accrue at least one hour of sick and safe time for every thirty hours worked in a calendar year, and employees are allowed to use that sick and safe time for their own illnesses, for the care of family members, for absences due to domestic violence or for workplace, or school closures.

The district court granted summary judgment to the city that the ordinance was not preempted by state law, yet granted summary judgment to the Chamber of Commerce on its extraterritoriality claim, and enjoined the City from enforcing its ordinance against any employer residing outside of Minneapolis.  On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s preemption ruling, and reversed the lower court’s granting of summary judgment on the issue of extraterritoriality.

In its review of the Chamber’s appeal on preemption, the Court discussed the three types of preemption of municipal legislative authority: express preemption, conflict preemption and field preemption.  The Court then examined all three areas to determine if the ordinance constituted one of those types.

In short, the Court found no preemption, as the Minnesota statute on the use of sick leave is permissive regarding the provision of sick leave to employees, rather than mandatory.  It also found that there was no express prohibition from the state legislature for cities to create their own sick leave ordinances.  The Court reestablished municipalities’ ability to set “a standard higher than the floor set by the Legislature.”

In looking at the unique extraterritoriality argument by the Chamber, the Court noted this was only the third time the Court addressed the issue in its history.  In examining the argument, the Court looked to whether the primary purpose of the ordinance was to regulate activity within the geographic limits of the municipality.  In finding for the City, the Court determined that the employees only accrued sick and safe time for hours worked within the geographic limits of the city, and employers were only required to allow the use of leave when employees were scheduled to perform work within the boundaries of the city.  The Court also recognized municipalities’ discretion to use their powers to regulate matters of public health (as seen in multiple municipal orders requiring the use of masks within various city limits).

With that, the decision of the court of appeals was affirmed, and the ordinance remains intact.

While this appeared to be an easy decision for the court, there was a strong dissent from multiple justices of the Court.  The case received ardent support from both the parties as well as the amici.  However, at this point, one would think the arguments that can be made against the sick and safe ordinances created by cities will begin to run dry.  With that, employers can be sure that additional ordinances will begin to sprout up in smaller jurisdictions than Minneapolis or St. Paul.

If you, or your organization, are having difficulty understanding a sick and safe ordinance and its impact on your business, contact the Wiley Law Office, for firsthand experience with sick and safe leave that works.