It began when Minneapolis and St. Paul passed PSL ordinances last year. Business interests sought to enjoin implementation of the Minneapolis ordinance. I wrote about that fracas in Minneapolis here.
In mid-January 2017, the court enjoined implementation of the Minneapolis ordinance with regard to employers located outside of the city’s geographical boundaries but denied the injunction with regard to employers within those boundaries. My post about that decision is here. That case is on appeal.
Less than two weeks following the court’s decision, Minnesota House Republicans introduced a bill, HF 600, to preempt political subdivisions from requiring employers to provide, among other things, paid leave. That bill, which would void the Minneapolis and St. Paul PSL ordinances, passed the House on March 2, 2017 and was sent to the Senate. Two business days later, a Senate Democrat introduced SF 1794, which would require Minnesota employers to provide PSL. Touché, as they say.
Where will this PSL Minnesota melee end? Applying my simplistic political analysis described generally here, Republicans control both chambers of the legislature, but not in sufficient numbers to overrule a governor’s veto. As a result, Democrats are not likely to muster the majorities in both chambers to pass the PSL bill; if the Senate approves the preemption law, Democratic Governor Mark Dayton is likely to veto it, a veto which the Republicans will be unable to overturn. If that speculation turns out to be correct, the Minnesota appellate courts will have the last word in deciding whether and to what extent the Minneapolis and St. Paul PSL ordinances survive, at least for now. All part of life’s rich PSL pageant, described here.