Minnesota is a Upper Midwestern U.S. state known for its thousands of lakes, strong Scandinavian and German heritage, and the economic and cultural influence of the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metro area. It became the 32nd state on May 11, 1
Minnesota borders Manitoba, Ontario, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota, with a small water boundary touching Michigan. It is the 12th‑largest state by area at 86,936 sq mi and the 22nd‑most populous, with an estimated 2025 population of 5,830,405.
When candidates apply for a job, they expect a thorough screening process: interviews, reference checks, and often a formal background check. But can an employer require a job applicant to pay for their own background check?
The answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. It depends on state law, federal wage-and-hour rules, and how the background check is conducted.
Federal Law: No Direct Prohibition, but Important Limits
At the federal level, there is no law that explicitly prohibits an employer from requiring applicants to pay for a background check. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulates how background checks must be conducted but it does not regulate who must pay for the screening.
However, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does impose limitations once a person becomes an employee. Employers cannot deduct background check costs if doing so would reduce the individual’s pay below the minimum wage for that workweek. While this usually applies to employees, not applicants, it still influences how some states treat pre‑employment expenses.
State Laws: The Deciding Factor
State legislation determines whether an employer can charge job seekers for the cost of a background check. And many states say no. These include: California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Vermont.
In states without specific prohibitions, employers may legally require applicants to pay for background checks as long as the practice does not violate any other wage, consumer protection, or hiring transparency rules.
Should Employers Charge Applicants?
Even in states where charging applicants is legal, many employers avoid it for several reasons:
Requiring applicants to pay, especially lower‑wage candidates, may shrink an employer’s talent pool.
Applicants may view the request as unfair or predatory, damaging employer reputation.
Collecting fees, issuing reimbursements, and maintaining compliance increases operational complexity.
Cost‑shifting disproportionately impacts economically vulnerable job seekers.
For these reasons, most employers see background check costs as part of doing business.
Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.
The growing number of jurisdictions permitting medical marijuana is putting employers in a tough position. One the one hand, marijuana remains illegal under federal law and a workforce under the influence isn’t much of a workforce at all. On the other hand, 23 states and the District of Columbia now permit the use of marijuana for regulated medical purposes and some state laws include anti-discrimination provisions prohibiting employers from taking action against employees based on their status as a registered medical marijuana user.
A first-of-its-kind lawsuit demonstrates the conundrum. In December, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in a Rhode Island state court on behalf of an individual who allegedly was denied an internship after she disclosed that she lawfully carried a medical marijuana card for severe migraines.
According to the complaint, the company told the applicant that she had been rejected because of her status as a cardholder, and despite promises not to bring medical marijuana on the premises or come to work under the influence, the applicant was denied the position.
The lawsuit charges that the company violated Rhode Island’s medical marijuana law which prohibits schools, employers, and landlords from refusing “to enroll, employ, or lease to, or otherwise penalize, a person solely for his or her status as a cardholder.” The complaint – which also includes allegations of disability discrimination under state law – seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Employers in states permitting medical marijuana would be well-advised to review their relevant law when considering marijuana use or marijuana-related criminal records in employment decisions. While Rhode Island is not alone in including an anti-discrimination requirement in its law, joined by Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and New York, other states – including California, Massachusetts, and New York – are clear that employers have no obligation to accommodate an employee’s medical marijuana use or permit them to work under the influence.
Read the complaint.
On May 13, 2012, Minnesota became the latest state to restrict criminal background checks for employment purposes with its Criminal Background Check Act (S.F. No. 523). Under the new law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2014, public and private employers may not inquire about, consider or require disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history until after the applicant has been granted an interview or before a conditional offer of employment is made. Since 2009, Minnesota law prohibited only public employers from asking about criminal records on job applications.
According to a report from the National Employment Law Project (the “NELP”) dated in April 2013, six states and 50 localities have adopted “Ban the Box” legislation. And pending before Congress is the federal HR 6220 or “Ban the Box Act” introduced last July by Representative Hansen Clarke (D-MI-13) which similar to these state and local laws, would make it illegal for an employer to ask about criminal history in an interview or on an employment application.
