Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Proposed Rules for Minnesota’s Earned Sick and Safe Time Law: Key Insights for Employers

By Gina K. Janeiro, Hadley M. Simonett, Kaylyn R. Stanek & Lainey Luthens on March 18, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
1742408145-3152057-1395-lxb_photoohK_uJJm2G8lxb_photo-
Nicole Geri, Unsplash

Over a year after Minnesota’s Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST) law went into effect in January 2024, Minnesota’s Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) recently published proposed permanent rules (the Proposed Rules) that, if adopted, will regulate the ESST law. Although the rules are not yet final, they offer insights for employers on DLI’s interpretation of the ESST law.

Certain Employees Accrue ESST When Working Outside of Minnesota

As a reminder, under the Minnesota ESST law, employees accrue one hour of ESST for every 30 hours worked, up to 48 hours annually. The Proposed Rules explain that an employee’s hours worked outside of Minnesota count towards accrual as long as the employer anticipates the employee will work more than 50% of their hours for the employer inside of Minnesota per accrual year. If the employer anticipates that the employee will work 50% or less of their hours in Minnesota during the accrual year, then only the employee’s hours worked in Minnesota will count toward accrual of ESST. If the employee begins the accrual year without the expectation of working in Minnesota for more than 50% of their work time, but the expectation of working in Minnesota increases during the year to more than 50% of worked time, then the employer must allow the employee to accrue hours beginning on the date of the change in circumstances. Under the Proposed Rules, an employee who is teleworking is considered​ to be working in the state from which they telework.

Guidance on Calculating ESST Deductions for Indeterminate Shifts

When an employee takes ESST for a shift scheduled for an indeterminate time, the ESST law does not expressly state how an employer should calculate the hours to deduct from an employee’s ESST bank. The Proposed Rules clarify that an employer can only deduct from an employee’s “accrued” ESST the hours worked by the employee who picked up the ESST-taking employee’s shift. If there is not a replacement worker for that shift, but there are similarly situated employees, then the employer can deduct: either the average hours worked by the similarly situated employees who worked the same shift or the greatest hours worked by a similarly situated employee who worked the same shift. If there is no replacement worker or any similarly situated employees, then the employer may use the hours worked by the ESST-taking employee in their most recent similar shift of an indeterminate length.

Employers Can Demand Documentation from Employees Suspected of ESST Misuse

The Proposed Rules provide guidance on an employer’s ability to address a suspected “pattern of misuse” of ESST. The Proposed Rules define a pattern of misuse for claimed unforeseeable use of ESST as an employee routinely taking ESST (1) before a weekend, vacation, or holiday; or (2) before the start of a scheduled shift for under 30 minutes. The Proposed Rules do not indicate what number of such suspected misuses qualify as “routine.” When an employer observes a pattern of misuse, the Proposed Rules allow the employer to demand reasonable documentation from the employee suspected of ESST misuse. The reasonable documentation is limited to the definition in the ESST statute.

The ESST Law Covers Other Paid Time Off Used for Qualified ESST Purposes

If a covered employer provides paid time off beyond the hours required by the ESST law to an employee for absences from work due to personal illness or injury, then under the Proposed Rules, the excess paid time off is also subject to certain requirements imposed by the ESST law when the employee uses the time off for a reason covered by the ESST law. Such requirements include but are not limited to those related to the ESST requirements on notice, documentation, and anti-retaliation.

Next Steps

The DLI has opened a second comment period on these Proposed Rules. Comments are due by April 2, 2025. We will continue to monitor these developments. In the meantime, if you have questions about Minnesota’s state-wide mandatory leave laws, local leave laws in Minnesota, or the mandatory employee leave laws around the country, please reach out to Jackson Lewis.

Photo of Gina K. Janeiro Gina K. Janeiro

Gina K. Janeiro is office managing principal of the Minneapolis, Minnesota, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Gina practices in all aspects of employment law and advises and represents clients in the areas of discrimination and harassment, disability management, employment contracts, wage and hour…

Gina K. Janeiro is office managing principal of the Minneapolis, Minnesota, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Gina practices in all aspects of employment law and advises and represents clients in the areas of discrimination and harassment, disability management, employment contracts, wage and hour compliance, commission claims, noncompetition litigation, drug testing law, defamation, whistleblower and in closely-held corporation and partnership disputes.

Read more about Gina K. JaneiroEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Hadley M. Simonett Hadley M. Simonett
Read more about Hadley M. SimonettEmail
Photo of Kaylyn R. Stanek Kaylyn R. Stanek

Kaylyn Stanek is an associate in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She represents management in employment litigation and advises clients on all aspects of the employer-employee relationship. Her goal with every client is to provide practical and straightforward advice.

Read more about Kaylyn R. StanekEmail
Photo of Lainey Luthens Lainey Luthens

Elaine (Lainey) Luthens is an associate in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Her practice focuses on representing employers in workplace legal matters, including preventive advice and counseling, as well as drafting employment-related policies and contracts.

She has represented employers on…

Elaine (Lainey) Luthens is an associate in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Her practice focuses on representing employers in workplace legal matters, including preventive advice and counseling, as well as drafting employment-related policies and contracts.

She has represented employers on a wide range of employment-related disputes, such as claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage loss, and breach of contract, in state and federal court and before federal, state, and local agencies.

Read more about Lainey LuthensEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Disability, Leave & Health Management Blog
  • Organization:
    Jackson Lewis P.C.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo