Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 37 / Act 453 of 1976
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2208 (2026)

Application for exemption; bona fide occupational qualification.

✓ 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


37.2208 Application for exemption; bona fide occupational qualification.

Sec. 208.

    A person subject to this article may apply to the commission for an exemption on the basis that religion, national origin, age, height, weight, or sex is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. Upon sufficient showing, the commission may grant an exemption to the appropriate section of this article. An employer may have a bona fide occupational qualification on the basis of religion, national origin, sex, age, or marital status, height and weight without obtaining prior exemption from the commission, provided that an employer who does not obtain an exemption shall have the burden of establishing that the qualification is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business.

History: 1976, Act 453, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Micu v. City of Warren, 382 N.W.2d 823 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Micu v. City of Warren, 382 N.W.2d 823 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 7× “2001) [sic]”, but denied that height was not exempted as a bona fide occupational qualification by MCL 37.2208; MSA 3.548(208). However, defendant did not plead as an affirmative defense that height was a bona fide occupational qualification.”
Whirlpool Corp. v. Civil Rights Comm'n, 390 N.W.2d 625 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 4× “[MCL 37.2208; MSA 3.548(208). Emphasis supplied.”
Port Huron Area Sch. Dist. v. Port Huron Educ. Ass'n, 393 N.W.2d 811 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 2× “Additionally, inasmuch as that approach was an attempt to apply the bona fide occupational qualification provision of the Michigan Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2208; MSA 3.548(208), it was contrary to the express agreement of the parties to withhold disputes concerning the preamble…”
Everson v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 222 F. Supp. 2d 864 (E.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 4× “§ 37.2208 applies to these positions, i.e.”
Wardlow v. Great Lakes Express Co., 339 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “In addition a number of states use the more restrictive bona fide occupation qualification (BFOQ) exception. Calif Gov Code § 12940 (West); Conn Gen Stat § 46a60(a); Fla Stat § 23.”
Klanseck v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 509 F. Supp. 13 (E.D. Mich. 1981). · cites it 2× “§ 37.2208; M.S.A. § 3.548(208). Said provision reads as follows: A person subject to this article may apply to the commission for an exemption on the basis that religion, national origin, age, height, weight, or sex is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary…”
Local 567 Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. Michigan Council 25, Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees, 635 F. Supp. 1010 (E.D. Mich. 1986). “§ 37.2208 is essentially the same. 3 . See also EEOC v.”
Tuohy v. Ford Motor Co., 490 F. Supp. 258 (E.D. Mich. 1980). “§ 37.2208. Those sections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act permit age discrimination in situations where the employer can show that *260 age is a “bona fide occupational qualification” (bfoq) “reasonably necessary to the normal…”
McLeod v. Providence Christian Sch., 408 N.W.2d 146 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “” MCL 37.2208; MSA 3.548(208). Although defendant contends that its religious belief constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification, defendant has not applied to the commission for such an exemption.”
Everson v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 391 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 37.2208 (West 2001).”
Kulek v. City of Mount Clemens, 416 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 37.2208; MSA 3.548(208). We find the reasoning in Micu to be persuasive.”
Miller v. C a Muer Corp., 336 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “See MCL 37.2208; MSA 3.548(208). In the instant case, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is vacated.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.