An employer may not make employment related decisions on the basis of a person’s place of birth, their citizenship status, their cultural traditions, and even personal characteristics that reflect a person’s cultural background – like an accent or a preference for a particular language. When we think about racial discrimination, we often think in terms of broad generalizations – like black and white – but discrimination can involve any type of distinction based on a person’s cultural background. Not only does the law prohibit discrimination against a person based on her individual cultural background, but it also prohibits discrimination based on that person’s choice to associate with people of different cultural backgrounds. For example, a decision not to hire a person because she chose to marry someone of a particular cultural identity is still discrimination. And racial discrimination doesn’t apply only to employment decisions that affect minority populations. A preference for hiring workers from a particular country, or for hiring foreign workers over American citizens can also be grounds for a discrimination claim. In later sections about advertising, interviewing, and hiring, we’ll talk about some issues specific to those stages of the employment relationship, like the distinction between discrimination on the basis of national origin and the requirement to ensure that a potential employee is legally authorized to work in the United States. It’s important to remember, though, that cultural characteristics should not be allowed to influence decisions at any stage of the employment relationship.

An employer may not make employment related decisions on the basis of a person’s religion or beliefs. While religious discrimination clearly applies to a person’s affiliation with a particular organized religion, it also applies more broadly to expressions of religion in the workplace. For example, basing an employment decision on a person’s request to wear religious attire in the workplace may be grounds for a discrimination claim. Likewise, treating a person differently based on a decision not to participate in religious activities in or outside the workplace can give rise to a discrimination claim. Protections against religious discrimination also include discrimination based on a person’s “creed”, which simply means a set of moral beliefs or practices. Those individual beliefs are protected against discrimination, even if they are not reflective of an organized religious tradition.

A person’s “sex” can’t be allowed to influence employment decisions. Sex discrimination is not limited to treating female employees differently from male employees. It includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as discrimination based on conditions associated with a person’s gender, such as pregnancy, breastfeeding, or contraceptive use. For example, a well-intentioned employer might instruct a pregnant woman not to do work that involves climbing a ladder, but the law doesn’t allow an employer to prevent a person from performing her job based on assumptions about her ability to perform the essential functions of the job. It’s a different story if a pregnant employee asks for a different job assignment or other accommodations to reduce safety risks. In that case, you may need to consider whether you can reasonably provide modifications to the work environment without major impact on your business activities. We’ll talk a bit more about reasonable accommodations in the upcoming section on health conditions, but the key point for now is that it’s not okay to make employment decisions based upon assumptions or stereotypes about gender roles or gender-related conditions.

A person’s choice to marry or not marry, including the choice about who to marry, can’t be allowed to change the way they are treated in the workplace. For example, a person’s decision to marry a same-sex spouse can’t be grounds for different treatment. Likewise, a decision not to hire or promote an employee because he or she is a single parent could lead to a discrimination claim. It’s generally okay to have a policy against employing married couples or family members in the same workplace, but only if the policy is applied equally toward all employees or job applicants.

As with marital status, Minnesota law prohibits employment decisions based on whether a person has or intends to have minor children in her household. That includes parents who live with their biological children and women who are pregnant or intending to become pregnant, as well as adults serving as caretakers or legal guardians and those seeking to adopt or obtain legal custody of a child under the age of 18.

While in some cases age may make a difference in a person’s ability to perform a job, Minnesota law protects any person over the age of 18 and under age 70 from discrimination in employment opportunities on the basis of age. Although older workers are more likely to face age discrimination in employment, younger workers often face discrimination as well based on stereotypes about work ethics, professionalism, and leadership ability. When it comes to employment matters, age alone is not a legitimate basis for treating a person of a particular age differently from people of other ages. While some jobs might seem better suited to younger or less experienced employees, whereas other jobs may seem better suited to older or more experienced employees, farm employers need to take care not to discourage employees of any age who are equally able to perform the duties of the job.

In most cases, a person’s health conditions or disabilities can’t be used as a reason for making employment decisions. Farm work is often physically demanding, which can make it tricky not to base employment decisions on a person’s physical ability or health conditions, but that makes it all the more important to focus on what the job actually requires, rather than our perceptions of how well a differently abled person might perform. When it comes to health or medical conditions, the law requires employers to consider applicants equally where reasonable modifications to the work environment would enable an employee or job applicant to perform as well as an equally qualified person without a health or medical condition. That may mean thinking about whether equipment or processes can be adapted, but it could also mean thinking about changes to the work schedule or the way instructions are communicated to the employee. For example, if an employee says that she is having difficulty getting to work on time because of medical treatments she is undergoing, think about whether it is possible to change the start time of her workday without disrupting essential operations.

The law also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations when requested during the application and interview process. That may mean, for example, facilitating the use of interpreters or telecommunication devices for applicants with vision, hearing, or speech impairments, which will be explored in more detail later in this guide.

Minnesota farm employers need to be aware that using criminal records to make hiring decisions can lead to problems, including a possible discrimination claim. With records of court proceedings publicly available, it may be tempting to perform your own background checks on prospective employees, but Minnesota’s “Ban the Box” law prohibits most employers from making any inquiry into a person’s criminal history until the applicant has been selected for an interview or offered a job. If a job applicant has been invited for an interview, the employer must interview the candidate even if the employer later receives information about the applicant’s criminal history.

Overall, the goal of Minnesota’s “Ban the Box” law is to give past offenders the opportunity to explain why they would make good employees and not be turned away solely because of a prior criminal conviction. That said, nothing in the law prevents a private employer, like a farm business, from deciding not to hire a person based on her criminal history. It is important, though, to make sure that hiring decisions based on criminal records don’t have a bigger impact on certain applicants based on any of the other grounds for discrimination discussed in this guide. For example, if a conviction for marijuana possession would be disqualifying for an applicant of color, it should be disqualifying for a white applicant as well. An approach that reasonably and consistently accounts for all the circumstances of a prior conviction – such as how the prior criminal activity relates to the duties of the job and the length of time since the prior conviction – can help avoid making hiring decisions that unintentionally disadvantage people with personal characteristics that are protected against discrimination.

In most cases, a person’s history of military service can’t be allowed to influence employment decisions. It may be hard to imagine discriminating against a person for service in the armed forces, but the law goes farther than simply saying that a person’s veteran status can’t be used as the reason for an unfavorable employment decision. For example, the fact that a person is applying to enter military service or is likely to be deployed for military service or national guard training generally can’t be used as a reason for firing or not hiring that person. Service members are also entitled to job protections when they return from active duty. In most cases, employers are required to reinstate military veterans to positions they held before deploying for duty, even if that means making special efforts to accommodate a service-related disability or health condition. Farm employers are not, however, required to offer any special preference when hiring or promoting veterans or service members. In fact, offering a preference toward veterans may be viewed as discriminatory toward women or minority groups who are underrepresented in military occupations.

In Minnesota, employers are not allowed to make employment decisions based on a person’s receipt of public assistance benefits. That includes any kind of federal, state, or local assistance program such as medical assistance, food assistance (SNAP), childcare assistance, or rent subsidies.

It’s fine for Minnesota employers to prohibit smoking or drinking alcohol during the workday. In fact, state law prohibits smoking tobacco in nearly all workplaces. But the same doesn’t hold true for employee behavior outside the workplace. Under Minnesota law, outside the workplace means off the employer’s premises and not during working hours. An employee’s decision to use any lawful product outside the workplace and outside of normal working hours generally can’t be used as the reason for any kind of hiring, firing, or disciplinary decision. That includes alcohol and tobacco use, as well as the use of any legal over-the-counter medications or prescribed medications including medical marijuana for properly registered patients. In general, it’s okay to fire or refuse to hire an employee if that person’s use of a lawful product impairs her ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the job or reflects badly on your business, but even then, you should consider whether you can modify the conditions of the job to work around the impairment. For example, if an employee takes prescription medication that causes drowsiness in the morning, you should consider whether the needs of the job can still be met with a later start to the employee’s workday.

The same doesn’t necessarily hold true for an employee’s unlawful activities, such as the recreational use of marijuana or other drugs that remain illegal under either Minnesota or federal law. It’s okay to make employment decisions based on the use of unlawful products in or outside the workplace, but it’s a good practice to make sure that any such decisions are based on written policies that apply equally to all employees. It’s also important to keep in mind that while current use of illegal drugs is not protected under the law, drug or alcohol addiction may be considered a disabling health condition that is protected against employment discrimination. Minnesota law does not require employers to make workplace accommodations for employees with substance abuse disorders, but some farm employers may also be covered under federal disability laws that require them to consider reasonable accommodations, such as taking time off to receive treatment. If one of your farm employees requests an accommodation related to substance abuse, consider talking with an experienced attorney to determine your obligations under both state and federal law.

Minnesota employers are not allowed to make employment decisions based on a person’s participation or involvement with any local human rights commission. The state’s “Human Rights Act” allows city and county governments to establish local commissions to address discrimination concerns and makes it an act of discrimination to refuse to hire or take any other adverse employment action against a person because of that person’s involvement with a local commission.

Most farm employers pride themselves on building a work culture that makes for happy, engaged, and productive employees. Sometimes, though, bullying or harassment can take place in ways or at times that are not immediately obvious. Minnesota law focuses on sexual harassment, but if harassment involves any of the grounds for discrimination we’ve already described, that can lead to a discrimination claim. Even when harassment doesn’t involve a discriminatory characteristic, it can still lead to legal problems if the work environment gets so hostile that it affects an employee’s health or ability to perform the job. That means farm employers need to think about how to cultivate a work environment where employees can easily and comfortably discuss any problems they might be experiencing. If a problem does get brought to your attention, the most important thing to do is take the problem seriously and try to make an objective decision about the best way to resolve the conflict. Depending on the circumstances, you may want to consult with an attorney to determine whether it makes sense for you to try to solve the problem yourself, or whether it is an issue better handled by an attorney or an outside investigator.