Minnesota House Bill HF2943

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/1/25
• Refer: 4/1/25

Caption

Minnesota Secure Choice Retirement Program; penalties for noncompliance added, and criminal penalties provided.

Impact

The introduction of HF2943 represents a significant shift in how employee retirement savings are managed within Minnesota. By implementing criminal penalties for willful noncompliance, the bill seeks to underscore the state's commitment to ensuring that employees are informed and enrolled in the Secure Choice Retirement Program. This development highlights the state's growing responsibility in safeguarding employee retirement interests and ensuring financial security for all workers. Consequently, covered employers will need to take explicit steps to adjust their practices to align with this new legal framework.

Summary

House Bill HF2943 aims to enhance the Minnesota Secure Choice Retirement Program by instituting penalties for noncompliance for covered employers. Specifically, the bill introduces a tiered penalty system that increases in severity with each successive year of failure to enroll employees or distribute necessary program information. The penalties begin with a fine of $100 per employee on the second anniversary of noncompliance and can escalate to as much as $500 per employee on subsequent anniversaries. This move is designed to encourage compliance with the state-mandated retirement program, which aims to improve retirement savings among employees in Minnesota.

Contention

As with many legislative measures, HF2943 has sparked a mix of support and opposition. Proponents argue the penalties will serve as a necessary deterrent against noncompliance and protect employees' financial futures. However, critics express concerns about the possible burden this legislation could place on small and medium-sized businesses, who may find the penalties excessively punitive. Additionally, there is apprehension regarding the criminal implications, with some stakeholders questioning whether such severe measures are warranted for what they consider administrative oversights.