HF4938

Purpose

• The bill would protect employees from being forced to have a microchip implanted by an employer. It creates a clear prohibition, provides civil remedies for violations, and defines key terms to ensure the rules are understood.

Main Provisions

• Prohibition of implantation
  • An employer may not request, require, or coerce an employee to have a microchip implanted for any reason.
• Civil remedies for violations
  • An employee who is affected can bring a civil action in court.
  • If the employee prevails, the court may order injunctive relief, and award actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.
• Definitions (key terms)
  • Employer: any person or entity that employs one or more employees in Minnesota, including state institutions, state agencies, political subdivisions, and municipal or quasi-municipal corporations.
  • Employee: an individual employed by the employer or applying for employment.
  • Microchip: a product, device, or technology implanted under the skin that contains a unique identification number and personal information that can be retrieved or transmitted noninvasively with an external scanning device.
  • Subcutaneously: beneath the skin.
  • Exclusions to “microchip” definition: devices implanted for health purposes (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, or prevention) that transmit only information necessary for those health purposes.
  • External scanning device: the tool used to retrieve or transmit information from the implanted microchip.
  • Temporary skin attachments: information stored on or attached to the skin by an adhesive strip or bracelet is not considered subcutaneous.

Section in Minnesota Statutes

• Establishes a new prohibition in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 181 (section 181.771) to ban microchip implantation by employers, with specified civil remedies for violations.

What the bill seeks to accomplish

• Protect employees from bodily autonomy violations related to mandatory microchip implantation.
• Create a legal pathway for employees to obtain relief and damages if an employer violates the prohibition.
• Clarify the scope of who counts as an employer and what constitutes a microchip or subcutaneous implantation.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Adds a new statutory prohibition on microchip implantation by employers (a new section, 181.771) in Minnesota Statutes.
• Expands the definition of “employer” to include a wide range of entities, including government entities and quasi-m municipal corporations.
• Introduces explicit civil rights protections and remedies for employees, including damages and attorney fees, for violations of the prohibition.
• Provides precise definitions to distinguish prohibited bodily implantations from medically necessary devices used for health purposes.

Significance and Potential Impacts

• Strengthens employee protections around bodily autonomy and privacy.
• Creates potential legal exposure for employers who require or coerce implantation.
• Could influence workplace policies and health technology practices across public and private sectors in Minnesota.

Implementation Considerations

• How the prohibition is monitored and enforced (through civil actions).
• How employers ensure compliance and educate HR and managers about the new restrictions.
• How the medical device exception is interpreted in practice, particularly for devices used for legitimate health care needs.

Relevant Terms - microchip implantation - employer - employee - civil action - injunctive relief - actual damages - punitive damages - attorney fees - Minnesota Statutes - subcutaneously - external scanning device - unique identification number - personal information - health condition - diagnosis - monitoring - treatment - prevention - adhesive strip - bracelet