Fear of being replaced by AI is palpable: As early as 2020, workers in tech-heavy industries were hinting that the fear of being replaced outweighed the benefits. Over the past year, that wary sentiment toward AI has doubled, according to KPMG research.
For Minnesotans grappling with their own replacement worries, a proposed bill in the state House of Representatives may give them peace of mind — and provide a case study for any other legislative labor committees looking to shape the future of the work in their state.
The Safeguarding Human Intelligence and Employment in Labor Displacement Act seeks to “protect workers from AI-driven job loss,” according to a statement from the Minnesota House.
What would protecting workers from AI job loss look like?
If passed, HF4369 would require “notice and a transitional employment period for employees displaced by artificial intelligence.” It would require that employers provide a 90-day notice before deploying technology that could displace jobs as well as an opportunity for employees to upskill or reskill.
The employer would need to issue the AI-related notice to its employees’ labor representatives, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, local officials and the regional workforce board. Failure to comply would disqualify an employer from receiving state contracts and could result in a fine of up to $10,000 per employee.
The bill was first read and referred to the Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy committee on March 17, 2026. It is sponsored by Rep. David Gottfried, with support from Reps. Isaac Schultz and Emma Greenman.
Why is AI at work a priority for Minnesota lawmakers?
Gottfried highlighted a report by North Star Policy Action and the University of St. Thomas stating that about one-third of Minnesota jobs have “high exposure” to generative AI. An additional 4% of Minnesotans’ jobs have “very high exposure” to generative AI. Notably, Minnesota workers are at the highest risk of replacement in the Midwest, and at the tenth-highest risk nationally.
“Workers in Minnesota face potentially life-altering job displacement due to the deployment of an A.I. system in their workplace,” Gottfried said in a statement to HR Dive. “Conversations with experts and industry leads indicate this displacement is only a matter of time.”
Gottfried explained to HR Dive how the architecture of the bill would keep Minnesotans in the game. HF4369 would make “a just transition to new or continued employment” possible, he said, especially since the required “transitional employment period” would give employees a chance to upskill. This could either help a worker stay at their current company in a different capacity or help them more easily obtain employment elsewhere, he said.
Could other states follow suit?
Most HR professionals who collaborate closely with their legal counsel already know about the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, Act. Qualified employers must issue a heads-up, known as a WARN notice, regarding plant closings and mass layoffs.
Slowly but surely, state lawmakers are vying for their own AI-related version of this legislation. Last year, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul proposed a requirement for employers to state whether AI had anything to do with the layoffs highlighted by an employer’s WARN notice.
HR pros could see their own state following suit if their state lawmakers have the same perspective that Minnesota’s Gottfried expressed at Tuesday’s hearing: He said that he sought not to regulate AI itself, but to put guardrails on AI use.
“I have been pleased to learn that some employers are practicing the very things that are covered in this bill, [and] showing the sort of ethical deployment of A.I. that I’d hoped for,” he told HR Dive via email. “However, our goal with any legislation like this isn’t to catch good actors — but to protect against bad or irresponsible ones.”