Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 37 / Act 220 of 1976
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1602 (2026)

Prohibited conduct.

✓ 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


37.1602 Prohibited conduct.

Sec. 602.

    A person or 2 or more persons shall not do the following:

    (a) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act.

    (b) Aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in a violation of this act.

    (c) Attempt directly or indirectly to commit an act prohibited by this act.

    (d) Willfully interfere with the performance of a duty or the exercise of a power by the commission or any of its authorized representatives.

    (e) Willfully obstruct or prevent a person from complying with this act or an order issued.

    (f) Coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by article 5.

History: 1976, Act 220, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 123, Imd. Eff. June 29, 1992

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Bachman v. Swan Harbour Assocs., 653 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bachman v. Swan Harbour Assocs., 653 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “1502, and (3) defendants retaliated against him for asserting his *413 rights under the pwdcra, MCL 37.1602. We will first discuss both plaintiff’s claim that defendants refused to accommodate his disability and the interplay between MCL 37.”
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012). · cites it 2× “Perich intervened in the litigation, claiming unlawful retaliation under both the ADA and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §37.1602 (a) (1979). The EEOC and Perich sought Perich’s reinstatement to her former position (or frontpay in lieu…”
Phillips v. Butterball Farms Co., 531 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 4× “The majority in Dunbar acknowledged that a retaliatory discharge is a type of wrongful discharge, but did not explain how the explicit statutory codification of public policy against retaliatory discharge in workers' compensation cases transforms such activity into a tort action…”
Reeder v. Cnty. of Wayne, 177 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (E.D. Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 12203 (a), PWDCRA, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1602 (a), Title VII, 42 U.”
Dudewicz v. Norris Schmid, Inc, 503 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “548(701), the Handicappers' Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1602; MSA 3.550(602), and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, MCL 408.”
Landin v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc., 38 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “362; the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1602), (2) where the alleged reason for the discharge was the failure or refusal of the employee to violate a law in the course of employment (e.”
Loretta Steward v. New Chrysler, 415 F. App'x 632 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 12203 (a); Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1602 (a). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Steward must demonstrate that: (1) she engaged in activity protected by [the ADA]; (2) the defendant knew of her exercise of her protected rights; (3) the defendant subsequently took an…”
Clifford v. Cactus Drilling Corp., 353 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “548(701), because of a physical handicap, MCL 37.1602; MSA 3.550(602), or in retaliation for filing a complaint under the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act, MCL 408.”
Suchodolski v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1982). “548(701) (Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act); MCL 37.1602; MSA 3.550(602) (Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act); MCL 408.”
Mitan v. Neiman Marcus, 613 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “] In her sole issue on appeal, plaintiff contends that genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude summary disposition of her claim of illegal retaliation under the HCRA, MCL 37.1602; MSA 3.550(602), which provides in pertinent part: *681 A person or 2 or more persons…”
Robert Hurtt v. Int'l Servs., Inc., 627 F. App'x 414 (6th Cir. 2015). “§ 12203 ; (4) retaliation under the PWDCRA, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1602 (a); (5) Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) interference, 29 U.”
Aho v. Dep't of Corr., 688 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “” MCL 37.1602(a). To establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation under § 602(a), a plaintiff must show: (1) that he engaged in a protected activity, (2) that this was known by the defendant, (3) that the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff, and…”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1602(a) — 18 cases
Bachman v. Swan Harbour Assocs., 653 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “1502, and (3) defendants retaliated against him for asserting his *413 rights under the pwdcra, MCL 37.1602. We will first discuss both plaintiff’s claim that defendants refused to accommodate his disability and the interplay between MCL 37.”
Aho v. Dep't of Corr., 688 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “” MCL 37.1602(a). To establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation under § 602(a), a plaintiff must show: (1) that he engaged in a protected activity, (2) that this was known by the defendant, (3) that the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff, and…”
Mitan v. Neiman Marcus, 613 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “] In her sole issue on appeal, plaintiff contends that genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude summary disposition of her claim of illegal retaliation under the HCRA, MCL 37.1602; MSA 3.550(602), which provides in pertinent part: *681 A person or 2 or more persons…”
Mitan v. Neiman Marcus, 613 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
Brower v. Roose (E.D. Mich. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1602(f) — 2 cases
Brower v. Roose (E.D. Mich. 2024).
Catchings v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist. (E.D. Mich. 2025).
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.