Minnesota Employment GuideMinnesota employment law, for employees
Minnesota Employment Guide is a publication of Madgett Law, LLC. It is general information about Minnesota law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether any of it applies to your job turns on facts this site cannot know. This is attorney advertising.

Guide · 17 min read

On Almost Every Rule an Employee Cares About, Minnesota Law Is Broader Than Federal Law — With Two Places It Is Narrower

Minnesota's discrimination statute reaches an employer with one employee; Title VII needs fifteen and the ADEA twenty. Minnesota forbids a tip credit that federal law allows. Minnesota's overtime threshold is 48 hours where the FLSA's is 40, and its discrimination deadline is one year where the EEOC's is 300 days. Each row here is sourced on both sides.

Nothing on this page is advice about your job, and no article can be. If you want your own facts looked at, a Minnesota employment attorney can do that — and several of the deadlines described on this site are short enough that waiting is itself a decision.

In this guide
  1. The premise this page corrects
  2. The table
  3. The noncompete row, stated precisely
  4. Two negatives, stated as searches
  5. Where Minnesota is actually narrower
  6. What this page does not do

The premise this page corrects

The common assumption runs one direction: federal law is the serious law, state law is the local supplement, and if a federal statute does not cover you nothing does. For Minnesota employment law that is backwards on most of the rules an employee actually encounters. The state statutes reach smaller employers, forbid a wage practice federal law permits, supply break minimums federal law does not supply at all, and give a longer window to file. Minnesota is narrower in two identifiable places, and this page names them rather than burying them.

Every row below is sourced on both sides — the Minnesota section and the federal statute or regulation — and each was retrieved on September 8, 2026. Where no federal counterpart was retrieved, the row says that as a report of what was searched, not as a claim about the whole United States Code.

The table

Subject Minnesota Federal Where Minnesota stands Guide
Employer size — discrimination Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 16: “‘Employer’ means a person who has one or more employees.” The employment prohibitions in § 363A.08, subd. 2, carry no separate threshold. Title VII: “fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ADEA: “twenty or more employees” on the same weeks test, 29 U.S.C. § 630(b). ADA: “15 or more employees,” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). Broader — by fourteen employees against Title VII and the ADA, nineteen against the ADEA. Was my firing illegal? · Harassment after the 2024 amendments
Employer size — disability accommodation Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6(a): the duty falls on an employer with employees “for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year equal to or greater than … 15 effective July 1, 1994.” ADA: 15 employees on a 20-calendar-week test, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). The same. This is the one place where the Human Rights Act adopts a federal-sized threshold, and it is a real gap between § 363A.08, subd. 2, and subd. 6(a). Reasonable accommodation at work
Employer size — job-protected leave Minn. Stat. § 181.939, subd. 2(e): for the pregnancy accommodation duty, “‘employer’ means a person or entity that employs one or more employees and includes the state and its political subdivisions.” FMLA: an employer is one “who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year,” 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(i). Broader — by forty-nine employees. Pregnancy and parenting leave
Overtime threshold Minn. Stat. § 177.25, subd. 1: “No employer may employ an employee for a workweek longer than 48 hours, unless the employee receives compensation for employment in excess of 48 hours in a workweek at a rate of at least 1-1/2 times the regular rate at which the employee is employed.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1): no employment “for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” Narrower. The federal threshold is eight hours lower. An employee covered by both is owed overtime at 40. Breaks and overtime after January 1, 2026
Minimum wage Minn. Stat. § 177.24, subd. 1(a)(4), sets the rate by the indexing formula in paragraph (c). The Department of Labor and Industry publishes the figure: $11.41 an hour as of January 1, 2026, rising to $11.87 on January 1, 2027, “for all employers in the state.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C): “$7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.” Broader — $4.16 an hour higher as of January 1, 2026, and indexed annually where the federal figure is fixed until Congress changes it. Minimum wage and the tip credit
Tip credit Minn. Stat. § 177.24, subd. 2, in full: “No employer may directly or indirectly credit, apply, or utilize gratuities towards payment of the minimum wage set by this section or federal law.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(m)(2)(A) permits a tip credit — the cash wage plus “an additional amount on account of the tips received by such employee,” capped at “the value of the tips actually received.” Broader. Minnesota removes the credit; the federal statute allows it. Minimum wage and the tip credit · Tips and service charges
Rest breaks Minn. Stat. § 177.253, subd. 1: “a rest break of at least 15 minutes or enough time to utilize the nearest convenient restroom, whichever is longer, within each four consecutive hours of work.” Subd. 3 adds unpaid break time “plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” No federal entitlement was retrieved. 29 C.F.R. § 785.18 addresses only how a break that is given must be treated: rest periods of 5 to 20 minutes “are customarily paid for as working time” and “must be counted as hours worked.” Broader. The federal regulation assumes a break exists and does not require one. Breaks and overtime after January 1, 2026
Meal breaks Minn. Stat. § 177.254, subd. 1: “a meal break of at least 30 minutes” for an employee “working for six or more consecutive hours.” Subd. 2 makes it unpaid except as subd. 4 provides; subd. 4 supplies the same liquidated-damages remedy. No federal entitlement was retrieved. 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a) provides that “[b]ona fide meal periods are not worktime,” that “[o]rdinarily 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period,” and that “[t]he employee is not relieved if he is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating.” Broader, on the same reasoning. The federal 30-minute figure describes when a period counts as a meal, not when one must be given. Breaks and overtime after January 1, 2026
Paid sick leave Minn. Stat. § 181.9446(a): “An employee accrues a minimum of one hour of earned sick and safe time for every 30 hours worked up to a maximum of 48 hours of earned sick and safe time in a year,” carried over to a ceiling of 80 hours under paragraph (b)(1). No federal counterpart was retrieved. The federal leave statute in the sources for this page is the FMLA, and 29 U.S.C. § 2612(c) provides that, except as subsection (d) provides and apart from certain leave under § 2612(a)(1)(F), leave granted under § 2612(a) “may consist of unpaid leave.” Broader. Minnesota supplies a paid entitlement that accrues from the first hour worked; § 181.9446(d) provides that it “begins to accrue at the commencement of employment.” Earned sick and safe time
Family and medical leave — the money Minn. Stat. § 268B.03 requires the commissioner to pay benefits to a qualifying applicant; § 268B.04, subd. 3(a), replaces “90 percent of wages that do not exceed 50 percent of the state’s average weekly wage,” 66 percent of the next band, and 55 percent above. Benefits are payable from January 1, 2026. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1) entitles an eligible employee to “a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period”; § 2612(c) provides that, except as subsection (d) provides and apart from certain leave under § 2612(a)(1)(F), that leave “may consist of unpaid leave.” Broader as to money, comparable as to weeks. Minnesota’s duration caps in § 268B.04, subd. 5, are “the lesser of 12 weeks” per track, with a combined ceiling of 12 weeks plus eight. The FMLA is 12 unpaid weeks. Minnesota paid leave
Pregnancy accommodation Minn. Stat. § 181.939, subd. 2(a): accommodations on request “with the advice of a licensed health care provider …,” except that no such advice may be required and no undue hardship claimed for “(1) more frequent or longer restroom, food, and water breaks; (2) seating; and (3) limits on lifting over 20 pounds.” One employee triggers it, subd. 2(e). Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg-1(1): unlawful not to make “reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” “Covered entity” incorporates the 15-employee Title VII employer, § 2000gg(2)(B)(i). Broader on both size and proof: the federal duty starts at 15 employees and admits an undue-hardship defense to every accommodation; three Minnesota accommodations are not subject to that defense at all. Pregnancy and parenting leave
Noncompetes Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2(a): “Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement is void and unenforceable,” with sale-of-business and dissolution exceptions in paragraph (b). No federal statute or regulation was retrieved. The Federal Trade Commission’s Non-Compete Clause Rule, 89 FR 38342 (May 7, 2024), was set aside in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024); the Commission acceded to the vacatur, and 16 C.F.R. part 910 was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations effective February 12, 2026, 91 FR 6507. Title 16 now reads “Parts 910-999 [Reserved].” Broader as to statutes. As the site’s About page puts it, Minnesota’s rule since 2023 “has no counterpart in federal law now in force.” Noncompete signed after July 1, 2023
Whistleblower protection Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(1): an employer shall not retaliate because “the employee, or a person acting on behalf of an employee, in good faith, reports a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of any federal or state law or common law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official.” No industry limit and no size limit appear in the subdivision, though the published section carries three revisor notes recording federal preemption holdings against clause (1) — as to reports of ERISA violations, and as to air carrier routes and services. No general private-sector federal whistleblower statute was retrieved. The federal antiretaliation provision retrieved for this page is Title VII’s, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), which is narrower by design: it reaches retaliation “because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” Broader. The Minnesota clause protects a report of a violation of any law made to the employee’s own employer — subject, in two fields, to the federal preemption holdings noted in the Minnesota column. The Title VII provision protects opposition and participation as to Title VII practices only. The Whistleblower Act protects the report · What counts as protected activity · The federal whistleblower deadlines are counted in days
Discrimination filing window Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3(a): civil action, local-commission charge, or charge with the commissioner “within one year after the occurrence of the practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1): “within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” or “three hundred days” where the aggrieved person “has initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency,” or thirty days after notice that the agency terminated proceedings, whichever is earlier. Broader — 365 days against 300 at best, and the two clocks are not interchangeable. Discrimination claims are lost on the calendar
Signing away an age claim Minn. Stat. § 363A.31, subd. 2: a waiver covering past or concurrent acts “may be rescinded within 15 calendar days of its execution,” except one given in settlement of a filed claim; a “waiving or releasing party shall be informed in writing of the right to rescind the waiver or release.” ADEA/OWBPA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1): a waiver is not knowing and voluntary unless, at a minimum, it is written to be understood, “specifically refers to rights or claims arising under this chapter,” gives consideration beyond what is already owed, sees to it that “the individual is advised in writing to consult with an attorney prior to executing the agreement,” gives “at least 21 days” to consider — “at least 45 days” for a group program — and allows revocation “for a period of at least 7 days following the execution.” Different machinery, not a simple ranking. Minnesota’s 15 days runs after signing and needs no reason; the federal 7 days is shorter but sits on top of a 21- or 45-day pre-signing period Minnesota does not require. The severance release: what it buys · The exit meeting
Health-coverage continuation — employer size Minn. Stat. § 62A.16 states the scope of § 62A.17 by the kind of coverage — “all group insurance policies or group subscriber contracts providing coverage for hospital or medical expenses incurred by a Minnesota resident employed within this state,” and employer plans established through an HMO under chapter 62D. Neither § 62A.16 nor § 62A.17 counts employees. COBRA is off entirely where all employers maintaining the plan “normally employed fewer than 20 employees on a typical business day during the preceding calendar year,” 29 U.S.C. § 1161(b). Broader on size, narrower on reach. Minnesota imposes no headcount. But § 62A.16 is written in terms of insured coverage, while a COBRA “group health plan” under 29 U.S.C. § 1167(1) includes a self-funded plan; whether § 62A.17 reaches a self-funded plan is not decided by any source retrieved for these pages. COBRA and Minnesota continuation

The noncompete row, stated precisely

The About page’s formulation — Minnesota’s noncompete rule “has no counterpart in federal law now in force” — holds, and the federal side of this row has a short history worth stating because a great deal of writing about it is out of date.

The Federal Trade Commission published a Non-Compete Clause Rule at 89 FR 38342 on May 7, 2024, codified at 16 C.F.R. part 910 and effective September 4, 2024. It declared it an unfair method of competition to enter into, enforce, or represent a worker as subject to a non-compete clause, with a narrower rule for senior executives. In Ryan, LLC v. FTC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024), the court held the rule unlawful and set it aside, concluding that the Commission had acted “in excess of its statutory authority” and that the rule was “arbitrary and capricious.” On September 5, 2025, the Commission voted 3-1 to dismiss its appeals and accede to the vacatur. It then removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations by final rule published at 91 FR 6507 on February 12, 2026, effective the same day, whose amendatory instruction reads in full: “Remove and reserve part 910.”

The current electronic Code of Federal Regulations, retrieved from ecfr.gov on September 8, 2026, carries no part 910. Title 16 lists the range as “Parts 910-999 [Reserved].” Secondary mirrors of the CFR still serve the old part 910 text, which is one reason to read the eCFR itself.

None of that changes the Minnesota row. Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2(a), voids a covenant not to compete entered into on or after July 1, 2023, by its own force, and never depended on the federal rule.

Two negatives, stated as searches

Two rows above say no federal counterpart was found. That phrasing is deliberate and it is not the same sentence as “there is no federal law.”

Breaks. A search of the retrieved federal sources — 29 U.S.C. §§ 203, 206, and 207, and the Wage and Hour Division’s interpretive regulations on rest and meal periods at 29 C.F.R. §§ 785.18 and 785.19 — turns up no provision requiring an employer to give a break. Both regulations are written from the other end. Section 785.18 begins by observing that rest periods “of short duration, running from 5 minutes to about 20 minutes, are common in industry,” notes that “[t]hey promote the efficiency of the employee and are customarily paid for as working time,” and directs that “[t]hey must be counted as hours worked” and “may not be offset against other working time such as compensable waiting time or on-call time.” Section 785.19 does the same work for meals: a bona fide meal period is “not worktime,” “do[es] not include coffee breaks or time for snacks,” and requires that “[t]he employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals.” Both tell an employer how to pay for a break. Neither tells an employer to provide one.

Paid sick leave. The federal leave statute retrieved for this page is the Family and Medical Leave Act, and its own text settles what it does not do: 29 U.S.C. § 2612(c) provides that, except as subsection (d) provides and apart from certain leave under § 2612(a)(1)(F), leave granted under § 2612(a) “may consist of unpaid leave.” No federal source retrieved here supplies a general private-sector paid sick leave entitlement. That is a report of what was searched.

Where Minnesota is actually narrower

Overtime. This is the row that most often goes the wrong way in conversation. Minnesota’s own overtime statute is the weaker one. Minn. Stat. § 177.25, subd. 1, begins the obligation at 48 hours in a workweek; 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) begins it at 40. For an employee covered by the FLSA, the federal threshold controls the outcome because it is reached first. An employer that pays straight time for hours 41 through 48 and points at the state statute is describing a rule that applies only to work the FLSA does not cover. Which work that is turns on FLSA coverage and exemption questions this page does not resolve; the breaks and overtime guide works through the exemption side of it.

Disability accommodation. The Human Rights Act’s headline employer definition is one employee, and the accommodation duty is the exception. Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6(a), imposes the reasonable-accommodation obligation on an employer whose employee count “for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year” is “equal to or greater than 15 effective July 1, 1994” — the same threshold and the same counting method as 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). An employee of a ten-person Minnesota company is protected against discriminatory discharge because of disability under subd. 2 and is outside the accommodation duty in subd. 6(a). That is a gap inside one section of one chapter, and it is the kind of detail an employer-size chart flattens.

The claim: "Federal law is stronger, so if the EEOC won't take it, there is nothing there."

On most of the rules in the table above, that is false, and the size thresholds are the plainest example. Title VII reaches an employer with "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year," 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); the ADEA requires "twenty or more employees," 29 U.S.C. § 630(b); the ADA requires "15 or more employees," 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A); the FMLA requires "50 or more employees," 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(i). Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 16, reads in full: "'Employer' means a person who has one or more employees." A person working for an eight-person Minnesota company is outside every one of those four federal statutes and inside the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The same asymmetry runs through the wage rows: Minnesota forbids the tip credit that 29 U.S.C. § 203(m)(2)(A) permits, and requires the breaks that 29 C.F.R. §§ 785.18 and 785.19 assume without requiring. The federal floor is a floor.

The claim: "Minnesota law always beats federal law, so I only need to look at the state statute."

That is not true either, and the overtime row is the reason to check both. Minn. Stat. § 177.25, subd. 1, requires time and a half only after 48 hours in a workweek. Under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), a covered employer may not employ a covered employee "for a workweek longer than forty hours" without overtime pay. An employee who works 45 hours and reads only the Minnesota statute will conclude nothing is owed. The Human Rights Act has the same shape in one place: § 363A.03, subd. 16, defines "employer" as one with one or more employees, but the accommodation duty in § 363A.08, subd. 6(a), applies only at 15 employees on a 20-calendar-week test — the identical threshold to the ADA's in 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). Checking one sovereign is not a strategy; it is a coin flip about which row you happen to be on.

What this page does not do

This page compares statutes. It does not decide which of them covers a particular job, and coverage is where these comparisons are usually won or lost — the FLSA’s reach turns on enterprise and individual coverage and on exemptions, the ADA and Title VII turn on a counting method with its own case law, and a Minnesota employer that is also a covered federal employer owes both sets of duties at once. Applying any of this to a specific paycheck, a specific firing, or a specific accommodation request is not what this page does. When a change to one of these rows happened and when it took effect is in the legislative changelog; which forum hears which of them is in the forum map.

Common questions

Does Minnesota's discrimination law apply to small employers?
Yes, down to one employee. Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 16, provides in full: "'Employer' means a person who has one or more employees." The prohibitions in Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 2 — including discharge and discrimination in terms of employment because of a listed characteristic — carry no separate size threshold. The federal statutes all do: Title VII reaches an employer with "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)); the ADEA requires "twenty or more employees" on the same weeks test (29 U.S.C. § 630(b)); the ADA requires "15 or more employees" (42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A)); and the FMLA requires "50 or more employees" (29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(i)). One Minnesota duty is an exception: the reasonable-accommodation duty in Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6(a), applies to an employer at or above 15 employees on a 20-calendar-week test.
Is Minnesota overtime after 40 hours or 48 hours?
Both numbers are real, and they come from two different statutes that apply at the same time. Minn. Stat. § 177.25, subd. 1, provides that "[n]o employer may employ an employee for a workweek longer than 48 hours, unless the employee receives compensation for employment in excess of 48 hours in a workweek at a rate of at least 1-1/2 times the regular rate at which the employee is employed." The federal Fair Labor Standards Act uses 40: under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), a covered employer may not employ a covered employee "for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed." An employee covered by both is owed overtime at the lower threshold. This is the one wage row where the federal number is the better one, and it is why the state figure alone is a misleading answer.
Can a Minnesota employer count my tips toward the minimum wage?
No. Minn. Stat. § 177.24, subd. 2, provides in full: "No employer may directly or indirectly credit, apply, or utilize gratuities towards payment of the minimum wage set by this section or federal law." Federal law permits the opposite. Under 29 U.S.C. § 203(m)(2)(A), the wage an employer must pay a tipped employee is the cash wage "not less than the cash wage required to be paid such an employee on August 20, 1996," plus "an additional amount on account of the tips received by such employee." Section 203(m)(2)(B) adds that an employer "may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees' tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit." Minnesota's rule removes the credit entirely.
Does federal law require lunch breaks or rest breaks?
No federal break requirement was found in the sources retrieved for this page. What the federal regulations do is tell an employer how to treat a break it chooses to give. 29 C.F.R. § 785.18 provides that "[r]est periods of short duration, running from 5 minutes to about 20 minutes, are common in industry," that they "are customarily paid for as working time," and that they "must be counted as hours worked." 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a) provides that "[b]ona fide meal periods are not worktime," that they "do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks," and that "[t]he employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals." Minnesota supplies the entitlement itself: Minn. Stat. § 177.253, subd. 1, requires "a rest break of at least 15 minutes or enough time to utilize the nearest convenient restroom, whichever is longer, within each four consecutive hours of work," and § 177.254, subd. 1, requires "a meal break of at least 30 minutes" for an employee working six or more consecutive hours.
How long do I have to file a discrimination charge in Minnesota versus with the EEOC?
One year under state law, and 180 or 300 days under Title VII. Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3(a), requires that a claim of an unfair discriminatory practice "be brought as a civil action pursuant to section 363A.33, subdivision 1, filed in a charge with a local commission pursuant to section 363A.07, subdivision 3, or filed in a charge with the commissioner within one year after the occurrence of the practice." Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), a Title VII charge "shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred," extended to "three hundred days" where the person aggrieved "has initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency," or thirty days after notice that the state or local agency terminated its proceedings, whichever is earlier. The Minnesota period is longer, and it is measured from a different event.

Sources checked September 11, 2026. Citations independently verified against the primary source September 11, 2026. Updated September 11, 2026.

Keep reading

Topic hub: How Minnesota employment law works

Was my firing illegal?