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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2210 (2026)

Plan.

✓ 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


37.2210 Plan.

Sec. 210.

    A person subject to this article may adopt and carry out a plan to eliminate present effects of past discriminatory practices or assure equal opportunity with respect to religion, race, color, national origin, or sex if the plan is filed with the commission under rules of the commission and the commission approves the plan.

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

AdminRule Notes:

    R 37.27 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1979–2002 · leading case: Sharp v. City of Lansing, 629 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sharp v. City of Lansing, 629 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 8× “[1] MCL 37.2210. [2] MCL 37.2101 et seq. [3] Const.”
Victorson v. Dep't of Treasury, 482 N.W.2d 685 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 18× “We granted leave to determine whether an employer, who implements an affirmative action plan that has not been formally approved by the Civil Rights Commission pursuant to *134 MCL 37.2210; MSA 3.548(210) [1] is guilty of discrimination as a matter of law.”
Crawford v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 645 N.W.2d 6 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 6× “§ 37.2210 does not bar the plaintiff's constitutional or federal law claims, (2) plaintiff has standing to pursue those claims, and (3) further factual development is needed on the merits, making summary disposition inappropriate under MCR 2.”
Lewis v. State, 629 N.W.2d 868 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 4× “[2] MCL 37.2210. [3] See Great American Savings & Loan Ass'n v.”
Victorson v. Dep't of Treasury, 454 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “The trial court found that defendants' failure to seek approval from the Civil Rights Commission of its voluntary affirmative action plan as required by MCL 37.2210; MSA 3.548(210) rendered the plan void.”
Sharp v. City of Lansing, 606 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff argues that even if defendant’s affirmative action plan was approved under the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2210; MSA 3.548(210), the plan should be subject to review under the Michigan Constitution.”
Reisman v. Regents of Wayne State Univ., 470 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “The challenged instruction was based upon the interpretation of § 210 of the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2210; MSA 3.548(210), by the Court in JF Cavanaugh & Co v Detroit, 126 Mich App 627 ; 337 NW2d 605 (1983).”
Ruppal v. Dep't of Treasury, 413 N.W.2d 751 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Section 210 of the act, MCL 37.2210; MSA 3.548(210), provides that an employer may carry out a voluntary affirmative action plan "if the plan is filed with the [Civil Rights] commission under the rules of the commission and the commission approves the plan.”
Baker v. City of Detroit, 483 F. Supp. 930 (E.D. Mich. 1979). “§ 37.2210, which permits a “plan to eliminate present effects of past discriminatory practices or assure equal opportunity with respect to race .”
Kulek v. City of Mount Clemens, 416 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “That provision, MCL 37.2210; MSA 3.548(210), states: A person subject to this article may adopt and *60 carry out a plan to eliminate present effects of past discriminatory practices or assure equal opportunity with respect to religion, race, color, national origin, or sex if…”
J F Cavanaugh & Co. v. City of Detroit, 337 N.W.2d 605 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “MCL 37.2210; MSA 3.548(210) states: "A person subject to this article may adopt and carry out a plan to eliminate present effects of past discriminatory practices or assure equal opportunity with respect to religion, race, color, national origin, or sex if the plan is filed with…”
Cremonte v. Michigan State Police, 591 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “After the amendment, plaintiff had to show that defendant was actually discriminating against him on the basis of his race or gender.”
Show all 13 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.