Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-16-15051
Christopher K. Larus, George B. Ashenmacher, Robins Kaplan
LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents)
L. Segal, Minneapolis City Attorney, Sara J. Lathrop, Sarah
C.S. McLaren, Assistant City Attorneys, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant)
L. Naughton, League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul, Minnesota
(for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities)
D. Cummins, Cummins & Cummins, LLP, Minneapolis,
J. Leiwant (pro hac vice), A Better Balance, New York, New
York (for amici curiae SEIU Local 26, TakeAction Minnesota,
Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en la Lucha, A Better Balance)
G. Schmitt, Veena A. Iyer, Courtney Blanchard, Nilan Johnson
Lewis PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Minnesota
Management Attorneys Association)
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge;
Connolly, Judge; and Florey, Judge.
Minneapolis's sick-and-safe-leave ordinance does not
conflict with Minn. Stat. § 181.9413 (2018), and is not
impliedly preempted by state law governing employer-provided
leave, by requiring private employers to provide
Minneapolis's sick-and-safe-leave ordinance does not
operate extra-territorially because it only requires
employers to (1) allow employees to accrue leave during the
hours they work in the city and (2) permit employees to use
their leave on days they are scheduled to work in the city.
related appeals concern a City of Minneapolis ordinance that
requires employers to provide sick-and-safe leave.
Respondents Minnesota Chamber of
et al. (the chamber) contend that state law conflicts with
and impliedly preempts the ordinance. Appellant City of
Minneapolis challenges the district court's ruling that
application of the ordinance to employers located outside the
city violates the extraterritoriality doctrine. We affirm the
district court's determination that state law does not
preempt the ordinance. But because we conclude that the
ordinance does not have extraterritorial operation, we
reverse in part, vacating the permanent injunction against
the city enforcing the ordinance against employers located
outside of the city.
31, 2016, the city enacted the sick-and-safe-leave ordinance
(ordinance), Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances (MCO)
§§ 40.10-.310 (2017), in order "to safeguard
the public welfare, health, safety and prosperity of the
people of . . . the City." MCO § 40.30(e). The
ordinance generally defines an employee as "any
individual employed by an employer . . . who perform[s] work
within the geographic boundaries of the City for at least
eighty (80) hours in a year" (80-hour threshold). MCO
§ 40.40. The ordinance defines an employer as "a
person or entity that employs one (1) or more
provisions of the ordinance require employers to provide
employees "one (1) hour of sick and safe time for every
thirty (30) hours worked up to a maximum of forty-eight (48)
hours in a . . . year." MCO § 40.210(a). The leave
must be paid unless the employer has five or fewer employees.
MCO § 40.220(g)-(h). Leave may be used for the
employee's or a family member's needs related to
health, domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking, and school,
daycare, and workplace closings. MCO § 40.220(b)(1)-(6).
The ordinance requires employers to track the accrual and use
of leave time. MCO § 40.270. The ordinance was to take
effect on July 1, 2017, with limited enforcement during the
first year. MCO § 40.90.
October 2016, the chamber initiated this action, seeking
declaratory relief and a temporary injunction prohibiting the
city from enforcing the ordinance. The district court granted
the chamber partial temporary relief, concluding that the
chamber was unlikely to prevail on its preemption claims but
likely to prevail on its claim that the ordinance
impermissibly operates outside "the geographic borders
of the City." Applying the severability doctrine, the
district court upheld the ordinance and issued a temporary
injunction that enjoined the city from enforcing the
ordinance "against any employer resident outside the
geographic boundaries of the City" until after
adjudication of the case on its merits.
parties appealed. This court affirmed the district
court's preliminary rulings as within its discretion.
Minn. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Minneapolis,
No. A17-0131, 2017 WL 4105201, at *2-4, *6 (Minn.App. Sept.
18, 2017), review denied (Minn. Nov. 28, 2017). We
upheld the district court's reliance on the
extraterritoriality doctrine to temporarily enjoin the city
from enforcing the ordinance as to employers that resided
outside of the city. Id. at *5.
2018, the city amended the ordinance to address the district
court's concerns about its geographic reach. As amended,
the ordinance provides that sick-and-safe leave only accrues
for hours an employee works "within the geographic
boundaries of the City." MCO 40.210(a) (2018). And
sick-and-safe leave may only be used "when the employee
is scheduled to perform work within the geographic boundaries
of the City." MCO 40.220(k) (2018).
parties moved for summary judgment. The district court again
rejected the chamber's argument that state law conflicts
with or impliedly preempts the ordinance. But the court
granted the chamber's motion as to the ordinance's
extraterritorial operation, subject to the severability
doctrine. The district court "enjoined [the city] from
enforcing the Ordinance against any employer resident outside
the geographic boundaries of the City of Minneapolis."
The city appealed, and the chamber filed a cross-appeal.
state law ...