RESIDENCY OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
Act 212 of 1999
15.602 Residency requirements of public employees.
Sec. 2.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a public employer shall not require, by collective bargaining agreement or otherwise, that a person reside within a specified geographic area or within a specified distance or travel time from his or her place of employment as a condition of employment or promotion by the public employer.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a public employer from requiring, by collective bargaining agreement or otherwise, that a person reside within a specified distance from the nearest boundary of the public employer. However, the specified distance shall be 20 miles or another specified distance greater than 20 miles.
(3) A requirement described in subsection (2) does not apply to a person if the person is married and both of the following conditions are met:
(a) The person's spouse is employed by another public employer.
(b) The person's spouse is subject to a condition of employment or promotion that, if not for this section, would require him or her to reside a distance of less than 20 miles from the nearest boundary of the public employer.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person is a volunteer or paid on-call firefighter, an elected official, or an unpaid appointed official.
History: 1999, Act 212, Eff. Mar. 10, 2000
Notes of Decisions
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 88× “At issue in this case is the proper construction of MCL 15.602, a statute that limits the restrictions public employers may make regarding employee residency.”
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 720 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 80× “Plaintiff appeals as of right an order of the trial court granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on the basis that defendant's residency requirement for employment was consistent with statutory restrictions under MCL 15.602. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and…”
William Miller v. Allstate Ins Co, 481 Mich. 601 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 3× “This latter question goes to the scope of the cause of action. Two conclusions should be drawn from this.”
Bowers v. VanderMeulen-Bowers, 750 N.W.2d 597 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Although no court has examined the meaning of this term, in Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180 ; 735 NW2d 628 (2007), our Supreme Court examined an analogous provision found in MCL 15.602. In Lash , our Supreme Court examined the meaning of the term “20 miles,” as used in MCL 15.”
Jack Morley v. Twp. of Bangor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff in Lash sued Traverse City for monetary damages, alleging that the city denied him employment because he did not meet the city’s residency requirement and that the residency requirement violated MCL 15.602(2). Lash, 479 Mich at 182-183 .”
Est. of Mildred Lyle v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “He refused to move, the police department rescinded its offer of employment, and the plaintiff sued the city for damages, invoking MCL 15.602. Lash, 479 Mich at 184-185 . The Supreme Court held that the residency requirement violated MCL 15.”
Michigan Open Carry Inc v. Dep't of State Police (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Our Supreme Court considered whether the plaintiff could maintain a private cause of action for money damages, even though the applicable statute, MCL 15.602, did not provide for one, based on the plaintiff’s argument that the cause of action was a necessary “mechanism to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.602(1) — 2 cases
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007).
“At issue in this case is the proper construction of MCL 15.602, a statute that limits the restrictions public employers may make regarding employee residency.”
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 720 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Plaintiff appeals as of right an order of the trial court granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on the basis that defendant's residency requirement for employment was consistent with statutory restrictions under MCL 15.602. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.602(2) — 4 cases
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007).
“At issue in this case is the proper construction of MCL 15.602, a statute that limits the restrictions public employers may make regarding employee residency.”
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 720 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Plaintiff appeals as of right an order of the trial court granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on the basis that defendant's residency requirement for employment was consistent with statutory restrictions under MCL 15.602. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and…”
Jack Morley v. Twp. of Bangor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“The plaintiff in Lash sued Traverse City for monetary damages, alleging that the city denied him employment because he did not meet the city’s residency requirement and that the residency requirement violated MCL 15.602(2). Lash, 479 Mich at 182-183 .”
Est. of Mildred Lyle v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“He refused to move, the police department rescinded its offer of employment, and the plaintiff sued the city for damages, invoking MCL 15.602. Lash, 479 Mich at 184-185 . The Supreme Court held that the residency requirement violated MCL 15.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.602(4) — 1 case
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007).
“At issue in this case is the proper construction of MCL 15.602, a statute that limits the restrictions public employers may make regarding employee residency.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.