Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202 (2026)

Employer; prohibited conduct; exceptions; access to genetic information.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

Act 220 of 1976

37.1202 Employer; prohibited conduct; exceptions; access to genetic information.

Sec. 202.

(1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer shall not:

(a) Fail or refuse to hire, recruit, or promote an individual because of a disability or genetic information that is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position.

(b) Discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of a disability or genetic information that is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position.

(c) Limit, segregate, or classify an employee or applicant for employment in a way which deprives or tends to deprive an individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affects the status of an employee because of a disability or genetic information that is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position.

(d) Fail or refuse to hire, recruit, or promote an individual on the basis of physical or mental examinations that are not directly related to the requirements of the specific job.

(e) Discharge or take other discriminatory action against an individual on the basis of physical or mental examinations that are not directly related to the requirements of the specific job.

(f) Fail or refuse to hire, recruit, or promote an individual when adaptive devices or aids may be utilized thereby enabling that individual to perform the specific requirements of the job.

(g) Discharge or take other discriminatory action against an individual when adaptive devices or aids may be utilized thereby enabling that individual to perform the specific requirements of the job.

(h) Require an individual to submit to a genetic test or to provide genetic information as a condition of employment or promotion.

(2) Subsection (1) does not prohibit an individual from voluntarily providing to an employer genetic information that is related to the employee's health or safety in the workplace. Subsection (1) does not prohibit an employer from using genetic information received from an employee under this subsection to protect the employee's health or safety.

(3) This section shall not apply to the employment of an individual by his or her parent, spouse, or child.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), no employer may directly or indirectly acquire or have access to any genetic information concerning an employee or applicant for employment, or a member of the employee's or applicant's family.

History: 1976, Act 220, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 20, Imd. Eff. Mar. 12, 1998 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 32, Imd. Eff. Mar. 15, 2000

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 138 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: McClements v. Ford Motor Co., 702 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McClements v. Ford Motor Co., 702 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 8× “§ 37.1202. [11] In *174 Chiles , an employee injured his back on the job and filed for worker's compensation benefits.”

Peden v. City of Detroit, 680 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 6× “*864 Once the plaintiff has proved that he is a "qualified person with a disability" protected by the PWDCRA, he must next demonstrate that he has been discriminated against in one of the ways set forth in MCL 37.1202. Like the ADA, the PWDCRA prohibits employers from taking any…”

Ashworth v. Jefferson Screw Prods., Inc, 440 N.W.2d 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “I Plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly granted defendants' motion for summary disposition because defendants' stated reason for the discharge, failure to return to work from layoff, was a pretext for discriminating against him because of a perceived handicap in…”

Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 2× “1201(b), and MCL 37.1202. [35] See the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.”

in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “1201(b), and MCL 37.1202 (same). Nor do we view MCL 691.”

Michalski v. Bar-Levav, 625 N.W.2d 754 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 2× “" MCL 37.1202(1)(b); MSA 3.550(202)(1)(b). To establish a prima facie case of handicap discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he is handicapped as defined by the HCRA, (2) the handicap is unrelated to his ability to perform the duties of his job, and (3) he was…”

Lamoria v. Health Care & Ret. Corp., 584 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “§ 37.1202(1)(b); M.S.A. § 3.550(202)(1)(b), with respect to handicap discrimination related to an injury that Lamoria suffered in the course of her employment, and (3) constituted illegal retaliation for plaintiff's seeking worker's compensation benefits.”

Wardlow v. Great Lakes Express Co., 339 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “MCL 37.1202(1); MSA 3.550(202)(1) states in part: "An employer shall not: "(a) Fail or refuse to hire, recruit, or promote an individual because of a handicap that is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position.”

Chiles v. Mach. Shop, Inc, 606 N.W.2d 398 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “MCL 37.1202(1)(a); MSA 3.550(202)(1)(a). The act does not limit the definition of “employer” to the plaintiff’s employer but, instead, simply defines it as a “person who has 1 or more employees.”

Downey v. Charlevoix Cnty. Bd., 576 N.W.2d 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The fact that handicap is not a listed classification in § 202(l)(a) of the Civil Rights Act is not dispositive, because, like the federal courts, we recognize a claim of handicap harassment or hostile work environment under § 202 of the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act (HCRA),…”

Carr v. Gen. Motors Corp., 389 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 2× “4 MCL 37.1202; MSA 3.550(202). 5 MCL 37.1207; MSA 3.”

Bogue v. Teledyne Cont'l Motors, 356 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “According to plaintiff, the employer’s intent was irrelevant to a determination of whether MCL 37.1202(1)(a); MSA 3.550(202)(1)(a) was violated.”

Show all 138 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(1) — 13 cases

McClements v. Ford Motor Co., 702 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 2005). “§ 37.1202. [11] In *174 Chiles , an employee injured his back on the job and filed for worker's compensation benefits.”

Wardlow v. Great Lakes Express Co., 339 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “MCL 37.1202(1); MSA 3.550(202)(1) states in part: "An employer shall not: "(a) Fail or refuse to hire, recruit, or promote an individual because of a handicap that is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position.”

Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger, Inc, 542 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

Collins v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 579 N.W.2d 435 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).

Bay City Fire Dep't v. Dep't of Civil Rights Ex Rel Roznowski, 451 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(1)(a) — 12 cases

McClements v. Ford Motor Co., 702 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 2005). “§ 37.1202. [11] In *174 Chiles , an employee injured his back on the job and filed for worker's compensation benefits.”

Peden v. City of Detroit, 680 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. 2004). “*864 Once the plaintiff has proved that he is a "qualified person with a disability" protected by the PWDCRA, he must next demonstrate that he has been discriminated against in one of the ways set forth in MCL 37.1202. Like the ADA, the PWDCRA prohibits employers from taking any…”

Betty v. Brooks & Perkins, 521 N.W.2d 518 (Mich. 1994).

Chiles v. Mach. Shop, Inc, 606 N.W.2d 398 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 37.1202(1)(a); MSA 3.550(202)(1)(a). The act does not limit the definition of “employer” to the plaintiff’s employer but, instead, simply defines it as a “person who has 1 or more employees.”

Bogue v. Teledyne Cont'l Motors, 356 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “According to plaintiff, the employer’s intent was irrelevant to a determination of whether MCL 37.1202(1)(a); MSA 3.550(202)(1)(a) was violated.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(1)(b) — 26 cases

Lamoria v. Health Care & Ret. Corp., 584 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 37.1202(1)(b); M.S.A. § 3.550(202)(1)(b), with respect to handicap discrimination related to an injury that Lamoria suffered in the course of her employment, and (3) constituted illegal retaliation for plaintiff's seeking worker's compensation benefits.”

Ashworth v. Jefferson Screw Prods., Inc, 440 N.W.2d 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “I Plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly granted defendants' motion for summary disposition because defendants' stated reason for the discharge, failure to return to work from layoff, was a pretext for discriminating against him because of a perceived handicap in…”

Michalski v. Bar-Levav, 625 N.W.2d 754 (Mich. 2001). “" MCL 37.1202(1)(b); MSA 3.550(202)(1)(b). To establish a prima facie case of handicap discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he is handicapped as defined by the HCRA, (2) the handicap is unrelated to his ability to perform the duties of his job, and (3) he was…”

Fritz v. Mascotech Auto. Sys. Grp., Inc., 914 F. Supp. 1481 (E.D. Mich. 1996).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(1)(d) — 2 cases

Adkerson v. MK-Ferguson Co., 477 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).

Hamilton v. HireRight Holdings Corp.<font color=\red\">CASE CLOSED-ALL ENTRIES MUST BE MADE IN 23-12162.</font>" (E.D. Mich. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(1)(e) — 1 case

Pietro Degiuli v. City of Taylor (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(1)(g) — 2 cases

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(2) — 1 case

Rancour v. Detroit Edison Co., 388 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(I)(b) — 1 case

Rollert v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 579 N.W.2d 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(b) — 4 cases

Sherman v. Optical Imaging Sys., Inc., 843 F. Supp. 1168 (E.D. Mich. 1994).

Barber v. Pepsi-Cola Pers., Inc., 78 F. Supp. 2d 683 (W.D. Mich. 1999).

Gaston v. Henry Ford Health (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Patricia Tyler v. Kalamazoo Pub. Schs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(f) — 1 case

Carr v. Gen. Motors Corp., 389 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. 1986). “4 MCL 37.1202; MSA 3.550(202). 5 MCL 37.1207; MSA 3.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(g) — 1 case

Shelby Twp. Fire Dep't v. Shields, 320 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(l)(a) — 8 cases

McClements v. Ford Motor Co., 702 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 2005). “§ 37.1202. [11] In *174 Chiles , an employee injured his back on the job and filed for worker's compensation benefits.”

Carden v. Gen. Motors Corp., 401 N.W.2d 273 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).

Bageris v. Brandon Twp., 691 N.W.2d 459 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(l)(b) — 23 cases

Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger Inc., 572 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 1998).

Downey v. Charlevoix Cnty. Bd., 576 N.W.2d 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “The fact that handicap is not a listed classification in § 202(l)(a) of the Civil Rights Act is not dispositive, because, like the federal courts, we recognize a claim of handicap harassment or hostile work environment under § 202 of the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act (HCRA),…”

Hawkins v. Genesys Health Sys., 704 F. Supp. 2d 688 (E.D. Mich. 2010).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(l)(d) — 1 case

Adkerson v. MK-Ferguson Co., 477 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(l)(e) — 1 case

Merillat v. Michigan State Univ., 523 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(l)(f) — 1 case

Bowerman v. Malloy Lithographing, Inc, 430 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202(l)(g) — 3 cases

Nw. Indus. Credit Union v. Salisbury, 634 F. Supp. 191 (W.D. Mich. 1986).

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.