Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202 (2026)

Employer; prohibited practices; exceptions.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

Act 453 of 1976

37.2202 Employer; prohibited practices; exceptions.

Sec. 202.

(1) An employer shall not do any of the following:

(a) Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, or marital status.

(b) Limit, segregate, or classify an employee or applicant for employment in a way that deprives or tends to deprive the employee or applicant of an employment opportunity or otherwise adversely affects the status of the employee or applicant because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, or marital status.

(c) Segregate, classify, or otherwise discriminate against an individual on the basis of sex with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment, including, but not limited to, a benefit plan or system.

(d) Treat an individual affected by pregnancy, childbirth, the termination of a pregnancy, or a related medical condition differently for any employment-related purpose from another individual who is not so affected but similar in ability or inability to work, without regard to the source of any condition affecting the other individual's ability or inability to work.

(2) This section does not prohibit the establishment or implementation of a bona fide retirement policy or system that is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this section.

(3) This section does not apply to the employment of an individual by the individual's parent, spouse, or child.

History: 1976, Act 453, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 153, Imd. Eff. May 22, 1978 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 11, Eff. May 1, 1991 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 190, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 2009 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 6, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 31, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 527 cases (150 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Haynie v. Dep't of State Police, 664 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Haynie v. Dep't of State Police, 664 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 54× “2202 The broad language of Michigan's Civil Rights Act expressly prohibits acts that "discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment...." M.C.L.”

McClements v. Ford Motor Co., 702 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 24× “2202 does not state that an employer is only forbidden from engaging in such acts against its own employees. Indeed, the CRA appears to clearly envision claims by nonemployees for the failure or refusal to hire or recruit, M.”

Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co., 697 N.W.2d 851 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 14× “[MCL 37.2202.] The CRA defines discrimination because of sex to include sexual harassment.”

Major v. Vill. of Newberry, 892 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 9× “MCL 37.2202(1); MCL 37.2205. The CRA also prohibits retaliation or discrimination because the person made a charge, filed a complaint, or opposed a violation of the act.”

Hecht v. Nat'l Heritage Academies, Inc, 886 N.W.2d 135 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 5× “Under MCL 37.2202(1) of the CRA, an employer may not discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment because of race.”

Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co., 731 N.W.2d 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 13× “One of the purposes of the CRA, specifically MCL 37.2202, is to eradicate particular forms of discrimination in the workplace.”

Lind v. City of Battle Creek, 681 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 12× “2202, provides in relevant part: (1) An employer shall not do any of the following: (a) Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment,…”

Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “§ 623 (a) and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA"), Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 37.2202 et seq. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found that Geiger failed to make a prima facie showing of age discrimination under either federal or…”

Rymal v. Baergen, 686 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “Employers are prohibited from violating this right, MCL 37.2202; MSA 3.548(202), and discrimination because of sex includes sexual harassment, MCL 37.”

Veenstra v. Washtenaw Country Club, 645 N.W.2d 643 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 4× “§ 37.2202(1), which provides in relevant part: An employer shall not do any of the following: (a) Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of…”

in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 4× “2201(a), and MCL 37.2202 (defining “employer” to expressly include state actors who are in turn liable for certain discriminatory conduct); and the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.”

Hamed v. Wayne Cnty., 803 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 4× “5 and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature under the following conditions: (i) Submission to the conduct or communication is made a term or condition either explicitly or implicitly to obtain employment, public accommodations or public services,…”

Show all 527 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1) — 61 cases

Haynie v. Dep't of State Police, 664 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. 2003). “2202 The broad language of Michigan's Civil Rights Act expressly prohibits acts that "discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment...." M.C.L.”

Hecht v. Nat'l Heritage Academies, Inc, 886 N.W.2d 135 (Mich. 2016). “Under MCL 37.2202(1) of the CRA, an employer may not discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment because of race.”

Veenstra v. Washtenaw Country Club, 645 N.W.2d 643 (Mich. 2002). “§ 37.2202(1), which provides in relevant part: An employer shall not do any of the following: (a) Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of…”

McClements v. Ford Motor Co., 702 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 2005). “2202 does not state that an employer is only forbidden from engaging in such acts against its own employees. Indeed, the CRA appears to clearly envision claims by nonemployees for the failure or refusal to hire or recruit, M.”

Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co., 673 N.W.2d 776 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1)(1) — 1 case

Bass v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1)(a) — 174 cases

Major v. Vill. of Newberry, 892 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 37.2202(1); MCL 37.2205. The CRA also prohibits retaliation or discrimination because the person made a charge, filed a complaint, or opposed a violation of the act.”

Karen Hrapkiewicz v. Bd. of Governors of Wayne State Univ., 910 N.W.2d 654 (Mich. 2018).

Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co., 697 N.W.2d 851 (Mich. 2005). “[MCL 37.2202.] The CRA defines discrimination because of sex to include sexual harassment.”

Lind v. City of Battle Creek, 681 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. 2004). “2202, provides in relevant part: (1) An employer shall not do any of the following: (a) Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment,…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1)(b) — 8 cases

Wilcoxon v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 597 N.W.2d 250 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

Farmington Educ. Ass'n v. Farmington Sch. Dist., 351 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Joram Mogaka Md v. William Beaumont Hosp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1)(c) — 9 cases

Radtke v. Everett, 501 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1993).

Burns v. City of Detroit, 660 N.W.2d 85 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

Burns v. City of Detroit, 637 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. 2002).

Joram Mogaka Md v. William Beaumont Hosp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(2) — 3 cases

Zoppi v. Chrysler Corp., 520 N.W.2d 378 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

Richard Maierle v. Charter Twp. of Clinton (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Zanni v. Medaphis Physician Servs. Corp., 612 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(a) — 9 cases

in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). “2201(a), and MCL 37.2202 (defining “employer” to expressly include state actors who are in turn liable for certain discriminatory conduct); and the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.”

Slayton v. Michigan Host, Inc, 376 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

Storch v. Beacon Hotel Corp., 788 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Mich. 1992).

Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 914 (W.D. Mich. 2011).

Hughes v. Park Place Motor Inn, Inc, 446 N.W.2d 885 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(c) — 1 case

Slayton v. Michigan Host, Inc, 376 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(l)(a) — 63 cases

Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 628 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. 2001).

Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co., 697 N.W.2d 851 (Mich. 2005). “[MCL 37.2202.] The CRA defines discrimination because of sex to include sexual harassment.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(l)(b) — 4 cases

Wrobbel v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 17, 638 F. Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Mich. 2009).

Bromley v. Parisian, Inc., 55 F. App'x 232 (6th Cir. 2002).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(l)(c) — 3 cases

Radtke v. Everett, 501 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1993).

Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Employees of Agency Rent-A-Car Hosp. Ass'n, 898 F. Supp. 492 (E.D. Mich. 1995).

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.