WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 676

Cohabitation contract terminology updated to gender-neutral terms.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Larry Kraft and 1 co-sponsor

Require employers to provide reasonable, health-care advised accommodations for pregnancy- or childbirth-related medical conditions, unless undue hardship.

Author added Kraft
#contracts #housingandhousingfinanceagency
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 676

HF 676 — Summary

Note: The bill’s title references updating cohabitation contract terminology to gender-neutral terms, but the introduced text and legislative actions focus on pregnancy-related accommodations in employment. This summary reflects the introduced content and related actions as provided.

Overview and Purpose

  • HF 676 would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who have medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth, upon the employee’s request and with advice from the employee’s health care provider.
  • The bill defines “reasonable accommodations” and sets a framework to ensure employees can perform job duties despite pregnancy-related conditions, while protecting employers from undue hardship claims.

Key Provisions

  • NEW PARAGRAPH f (Section 216.6, subd. 2): Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to an employee based on medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth when requested with medical advice.
  • Definition of “Reasonable Accommodations”: Actions that would enable an employee with a pregnancy- or childbirth-related medical condition to perform the activities involved in their occupation in a reasonable manner. Examples include:
    • Accessible worksite
    • Acquisition or modification of equipment
    • Job restructuring
    • Modified work schedule
    • Other accommodations not limited to the above
  • Undue Hardship Standard: Accommodations must not impose an undue hardship on the employer.
  • Penalties and Enforcement: A failure to provide such accommodations would be subject to the existing penalties for discriminatory employment practices.
  • Explanation Clause: The bill includes an explanatory note (not an endorsement by lawmakers) clarifying the intent and substance of the provision.

Who is Affected

  • Employees: Pregnant individuals or those with childbirth-related medical conditions seeking accommodations.
  • Employers: Covered employers must assess and implement accommodations upon valid requests supported by health care advice.
  • Employers’ HR and management personnel: Responsible for implementing accommodations, evaluating feasibility, and ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination provisions.

Timeline and Procedural History

  • Introduction: February 28, 2025.
  • Legislative Action:
    • Introduced, referred to Labor and Workforce (2025-02-28).
    • Author Kraft added as an author (2025-02-26).
    • Introduction and first reading dated February 13, 2025; referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law.
  • Sponsors: Primary sponsors include Wilburn, Ehlert, Nielsen, B. Meyer, James, Croken, Scholten, Konfrst, Wessel-Kroeschell, R. Johnson, Levin, Srinivas, Bagniewski, Olson, Madison, Matson, Kressig, Zabner, Cooling, Amos Jr., among others.
  • Related Bills: Companion SF 1277.

Related and Comparative References

  • Companion Bill: SF 1277 (Minnesota) indicated as the related companion.
  • Subject/Classification: CONTRACTS, Housing and Housing Finance Agency; however, the introduced text centers on employment accommodations rather than housing contracts.

Potential Impacts and Considerations

  • Positive impacts: Could improve retention and support for pregnant employees; align workplace practices with inclusive employment standards.
  • Costs and operational considerations: Employers may need to adjust policies, facilities, equipment, and scheduling to accommodate pregnancy-related needs.
  • Legal risk: Clearer enforcement under anti-discrimination provisions; potential disputes over what constitutes reasonable accommodations or undue hardship.
  • Scope considerations: The bill’s current language focuses on pregnancy-related accommodations; broader implications for non-pregnancy-related disabilities could depend on how courts interpret “reasonable accommodations” and existing law.

If you’d like, I can compare HF 676 to SF 1277 or map out a specific compliance checklist for employers.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.