ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
Act 453 of 1976
37.2205a Employer, employment agency, or labor organization; record of information regarding misdemeanor arrest, detention, or disposition; failure to recite or acknowledge information; “law enforcement agency” defined.
Sec. 205a.
(1) An employer, employment agency, or labor organization, other than a law enforcement agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state, shall not in connection with an application for employment or membership, or in connection with the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or membership request, make, or maintain a record of information regarding a misdemeanor arrest, detention, or disposition where a conviction did not result. A person is not guilty of perjury or otherwise for giving a false statement by failing to recite or acknowledge information the person has a civil right to withhold by this section. This section does not apply to information relative to a felony charge before conviction or dismissal.
(2) As used in this section, "law enforcement agency" includes the state department of corrections.
History: 1976, Act 453, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 610, Eff. Mar. 30, 1979 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 45, Eff. Mar. 30, 1983 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 202, Eff. Mar. 10, 2000
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 1 of Act 202 of 1999 provides:
“Enacting section 1. This amendatory act is curative and intended to correct any misinterpretation of legislative intent in the court of appeals decision Neal v Department of Corrections, 232 Mich App 730 (1998). This legislation further expresses the original intent of the legislature that an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state or county correctional facility is not within the purview of this act. ”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
Aho v. Dep't of Corr., 688 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
Aho v. Dep't of Corr., 688 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “III Plaintiff cross-appeals the trial court’s entry of summary disposition in favor of defendant with respect to count II of the complaint, in which plaintiff asserts that defendant violated § 205a of the CRA, MCL 37.2205a, 3 when it failed to purge plaintiffs arrest record for…”
Brown v. Brown, 739 N.W.2d 313 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 2× “, MCL 37.2205a (prohibiting an employer from requesting, making, or maintaining a record of information regarding a misdemeanor arrest if a conviction did not result).”
Rivers v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 300 N.W.2d 420 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “It would subvert the legislative policy embodied in this statute were we to rule that plaintiff's alleged failure to submit to a polygraph examination should have been allowed into evidence.”
Bischoff v. Calhoun Cnty. Prosecutor, 434 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“3 Our conclusion is buttressed by MCL 37.2205a; MSA 3.548(205a), which exempts a law enforcement agency of the state or a political subdivision of the state from the general prohibition against requesting, making, or maintaining, in connection with an application for employment,…”
Haidar v. Walmart Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2025).
· cites it 2× “) The statute Plaintiff cites as prohibiting his discharge applies only to misdemeanors, expressly stating that “[t]his section does not apply to information relative to a felony charge before conviction or dismissal.”
Georgeann Lee Belanger v. Darren Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“335A2B (aggravated indecent exposure) and MCL 5 Plaintiffs also argue Harnden’s 2014 arrest for disturbing the peace put defendant on notice that Harnden would later commit sexual misconduct.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2205a(1) — 1 case
Georgeann Lee Belanger v. Darren Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“335A2B (aggravated indecent exposure) and MCL 5 Plaintiffs also argue Harnden’s 2014 arrest for disturbing the peace put defendant on notice that Harnden would later commit sexual misconduct.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2205a(2) — 2 cases
Rivers v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 300 N.W.2d 420 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“It would subvert the legislative policy embodied in this statute were we to rule that plaintiff's alleged failure to submit to a polygraph examination should have been allowed into evidence.”
Aho v. Dep't of Corr., 688 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“III Plaintiff cross-appeals the trial court’s entry of summary disposition in favor of defendant with respect to count II of the complaint, in which plaintiff asserts that defendant violated § 205a of the CRA, MCL 37.2205a, 3 when it failed to purge plaintiffs arrest record for…”
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.