WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SF 4689

Use of automated decision systems in employment settings regulation

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jen McEwen and 1 co-sponsor

Regulates use of automated decision systems in employment to ensure transparency, human oversight, fairness, and auditability in hiring, evaluation, and related decisions.

Pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 6, referred to Rules and Administration
#telecommunicationsandinformationtechnology #labor #employment #andlaborandindustrydepartment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 4689

Summary: SF 4689 (Minnesota, 2025-2026) – Use of Automated Decision Systems in Employment Settings Regulation

Purpose and intent

SF 4689 seeks to regulate the use of automated decision systems (ADS) in employment settings. The bill aims to increase transparency, accountability, and protections for job applicants and employees when automated tools are used to make or influence employment-related decisions (e.g., hiring, screening, promotion, terminations). The overarching goal is to ensure that ADS are used in fair, non-discriminatory, and auditable ways, with oversight mechanisms and clear duties for employers.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definition and scope of ADS: Establishes a definition for automated decision systems used in employment contexts. May cover algorithms, scoring models, machine learning tools, and other automated processes that influence decisions about hiring, evaluation, compensation, promotion, or termination.

  • Prohibition of certain uses or safeguards:

    • Prohibits or restricts certain high-risk uses of ADS without human review or explainability.
    • Requires safeguards to prevent discrimination and biased outcomes, potentially aligning with fair lending or civil rights standards in employment.

  • Transparency and disclosure requirements:

    • Employers using ADS must provide disclosures to applicants and employees about when and how ADS are used.
    • May require explanations of the factors considered by the system and whether the system’s outputs are weighted or used as a recommendation rather than the sole basis for a decision.

  • Human-in-the-loop requirements:

    • Specifies circumstances under which a human decision-maker must review ADS outputs.
    • Sets standards for human oversight, ensuring final employment decisions are not solely automated.

  • Testing, validation, and auditing:

    • Employers may need to conduct regular testing and validation of ADS to ensure accuracy, fairness, and non-discrimination.
    • Could include independent audits or internal review processes, with documentation retained for a specified period.

  • Data privacy and security:

    • Addresses how data used by ADS must be collected, stored, and protected.
    • May impose minimum privacy protections for the data used in automated decision processes.

  • Recordkeeping and reporting:

    • Requires recordkeeping related to ADS usage, decision outcomes, and any mitigations or corrections applied.
    • Possible annual or periodic reporting to a state agency or on-filed compliance documentation.

  • Enforcement and penalties:

    • Establishes enforcement mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance.
    • Could include civil enforcement, fines, or corrective action orders.

  • Scope of affected entities:

    • Applies to employers operating in Minnesota, including private sector employers and possibly public employers.
    • May specify thresholds (e.g., size of the workforce or use of ADS beyond a certain frequency) to determine applicability.

Who would be affected

  • Employers using ADS in hiring or employment decisions in Minnesota.
  • Job applicants and employees who are subject to ADS-influenced decisions, benefiting from transparency, accountability, and potential recourse.
  • HR professionals and hiring managers who implement or oversee ADS processes.
  • Regulators and state agencies responsible for enforcement and oversight of employment practices.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and referrals:

    • Introduced and referred to the Labor committee (March 23, 2026).
    • Subsequent committee actions include passages with amendments and re-references to State and Local Government, and later to Rules and Administration via a concurrent resolution (April 2026).

  • Committee action history:

    • March 23, 2026: Referred to Labor.
    • March 25, 2026: Author addition (McEwen).
    • April 7, 2026: Committee report: To pass as amended and re-refer to State and Local Government.
    • April 9, 2026: Committee report: To pass as amended and re-refer to Judiciary and Public Safety.
    • April 9, 2026: Referred pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 6 to Rules and Administration.

  • Status:

    • As of the latest action, the bill has advanced through several committees with amendments and is moving toward a Rules and Administration referral, indicating ongoing negotiations and potential floor consideration.

Notes for readers

  • Specific numeric details (e.g., exact definitions, thresholds, penalties, and timeframes for recordkeeping) are not provided in the summary of the action history. The final text of SF 4689 would specify these elements, including any carve-outs, exemptions, or sector-specific provisions.
  • The bill aligns with broader policy trends emphasizing fairness, transparency, and accountability in automated decision-making within employment contexts.

If you’d like, I can pull the exact text of SF 4689 and produce a line-by-line annotated summary of provisions, definitions, and enforcement provisions.

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

Sign in to ask a question.