The job reference is making a comeback in Minnesota.

It will take years and probably a few lawsuits to know the full effect of Minnesota's new law on references.

But attorneys and employers say they see signs that the law, which took effect last August, is opening the tap on information largely because potential employers are insisting on all they can get.

The law attempts to help employers give and get information about workers without fear of defamation lawsuits. The goal is to balance employers' hunger for help -- to avoid the heavy toll of bad hires -- with workers' rights to privacy and fair notice of what their bosses are saying about them.

It might be working. "I think you're going to see more employers knowing what they can get and what they can do," said Ellen Sampson, an employment attorney at Leonard, Street and Deinard in Minneapolis. "We are seeing the beginning of that, based on the kind of requests for personnel forms that I get from clients."

Still, there is still trepidation among reference givers.

"I can see some are still saying, 'This isn't worth the headache. We'll just keep saying, 'No,' or, 'We'll limit ourselves to information where we don't need authorization,' " said Nicole Druckrey, an employment attorney at Halleland Lewis Nilan Sipkins & Johnson in Minneapolis.

But reference takers are driving change, particularly using a new provision that lets them ask about applicants' actual job performance, such as: Did this person come in late very often? Miss much work? Work well with others?

It's exactly what hiring employers have most wanted to know and referring employers have most feared to tell, before the new law.

Applicants must give their old bosses permission to share that information. But Sampson predicts more employers will tell job applicants, "If you want me to consider you, you have to sign a release so your old boss can tell me everything."

"I think you do see some hiring employers ask for a release, ask for permission," Sampson said. "Sometimes it's on the job application itself."

As long as employers apply the rule fairly, they're within their rights to do this, she said.

The new law will shake loose other information, too, because it says employers must share certain facts -- the really bad stuff such as bringing a gun to work, sexually harassing another employee or stealing.

That means that for the first time, Minnesota employers can't function with an absolute name-job-dates-of-employment-only policy.

"If an employer remains silent or flat-out gives a good reference, I think they're going to have a greater chance of the second employer suing," Sampson said.

It's an important point for Malinda Mehrhoff, human resources manager at the Dakota Electric Association cooperative in Farmington.

"I think it's a great thing," Mehroff said. "From an employer's perspective, you would certainly want that information if you're hiring somebody."

Before the change, fear of a lawsuit by the employee probably would have stopped her from giving out such information, she said.

"I don't think that it ever came up, but we probably wouldn't have told," she said.

Employers are slowly feeling more free to speak, Druckrey said, because it's harder now for a worker to punish them for a bad reference. Only employers who deliberately sabotage a prospective job are in legal trouble, she said.

No one expects all the changes to stop the time-honored tradition of calling a colleague of a colleague for unofficial information on a potential hire. Employers will always consider this an important source of candor. The downside is that job applicants have no chance to tell their side, attorneys said.

Employers who want to -- or have to -- give a bad reference should follow this procedure, Druckrey advises: Put all the information in writing. Choose facts over opinion. "This employee missed 87 days of work last year" is better than "This employee has an attendance problem." Funnel all references through one person for consistency.

Many employers are making the release form a part of exit interviews, she said. That way, they have the employee's wishes on record if a prospective employer calls for information even years later.

Employees should know all their rights, too, the attorneys said. They are entitled to a copy of their references, so they know what's being said about them. During their work tenure, they may respond to any criticisms in their personnel files, and those responses must accompany the criticisms if they're released.

If job applicants know their reference is critical, they would be wise to volunteer that up front with their own explanations, Sampson said. Maybe they missed 87 days because they had a house fire, and they can show strong attendance in other years, for example.

Minnesota small-business owner Rick Anderson has already found one limitation in the law. He plans to hire three or four customer service representatives for his Eagan-based engineering firm, Cable System Services.

"The problem is some of these reps will be in Arizona, so I've got to research the law down there," Anderson said. "And in that kind of high-growth area a lot of people are coming from somewhere else, so I'll have to research the laws in those other states. So references are still an issue when you're doing national hiring."