ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
Act 453 of 1976
37.2302 Public accommodations or services; prohibited practices.
Sec. 302.
Except where permitted by law, a person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or marital status.
(b) Print, circulate, post, mail, or otherwise cause to be published a statement, advertisement, notice, or sign that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or marital status, or that an individual's patronage of or presence at a place of public accommodation is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or marital status.
History: 1976, Act 453, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 6, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024
Constitutionality Notes:
The goal of the Civil Rights Act was to broaden the scope of equal protection rather than the standard of equal protection developed by the courts in the course of interpreting the equal protection provisions of United States and Michigan Constitutions. Civil Rights Department v Waterford, 425 Mich 173; 387 NW2d 821 (1986).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
113
cases (
34 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
Haynes v Neshewat, 729 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. 2007).
Haynes v Neshewat, 729 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 28× “We granted leave to appeal to determine whether plaintiff has stated a cause of action under MCL 37.2302, the public accommodations provision of the Civil Rights Act (CRA).”
Dep't of Civil Rights Ex Rel. Forton v. Waterford Twp. Dep't of Parks & Rec., 387 N.W.2d 821 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 10× “This lawsuit comes to us on the question whether the defendant township can operate a basketball program for elementary students that requires separate gender-based leagues playing at different times of the year, without violating the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2302; MSA…”
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,…”
Diamond v. Witherspoon, 696 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “5 million as a result of violations of the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2302, and allocating fault of thirty-five percent against defendant.”
Kassab v. Michigan Basic Prop. Ins., 491 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 1992).
· cites it 8× “[MCL 37.2302; MSA 3.548(302).] The reference to a place of "public service" is not relevant here, because the act defines a "[p]ublic service" to mean only a governmental agency or "a tax exempt private agency established to provide service to the public.”
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023).
· cites it 2× “272, § 98 (2021); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 37.2302 (West 2013); Minn.”
Moses, Inc v. Se. Michigan Council of Governments, 716 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “In count I, plaintiffs allege that SEMCOG’s governing structure violates § 302 of the CRA, MCL 37.2302, because it discriminates against residents of Detroit on the basis of their race.”
John Does 11-18 v. Dep't of Corr., 917 N.W.2d 730 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “Furthermore, MCL 37.2302 includes the phrase "[e]xcept where permitted by law," thereby providing discretion to the Legislature to decide the scope of Article 3.”
Ledsinger v. Burmeister, 318 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 3× “Section 302 of the act, MCL 37.2302; MSA 3.548(302), makes it unlawful to: "(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion,…”
Neal v. Dep't of Corr., 583 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “Defendants specifically note that the language of the statute is inapplicable because correctional facilities are not open to the general public and because prisoners are not members of the general public for purposes of the statute. The trial court held that the MDOC is a…”
Brintley v. St. Mary Mercy Hosp., 904 F. Supp. 2d 699 (E.D. Mich. 2012).
· cites it 6× “*726 The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and reversed the Court of Appeals ruling: The public accommodations provision of the CRA, MCL 37.2302, does not limit its prohibition against discrimination to members of the public.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2302(1) — 3 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2302(a) — 61 cases
Haynes v Neshewat, 729 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. 2007).
“We granted leave to appeal to determine whether plaintiff has stated a cause of action under MCL 37.2302, the public accommodations provision of the Civil Rights Act (CRA).”
Kassab v. Michigan Basic Prop. Ins., 491 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 1992).
“[MCL 37.2302; MSA 3.548(302).] The reference to a place of "public service" is not relevant here, because the act defines a "[p]ublic service" to mean only a governmental agency or "a tax exempt private agency established to provide service to the public.”
Neal v. Dep't of Corr., 583 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“Defendants specifically note that the language of the statute is inapplicable because correctional facilities are not open to the general public and because prisoners are not members of the general public for purposes of the statute. The trial court held that the MDOC is a…”
John Does 11-18 v. Dep't of Corr., 917 N.W.2d 730 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Furthermore, MCL 37.2302 includes the phrase "[e]xcept where permitted by law," thereby providing discretion to the Legislature to decide the scope of Article 3.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2302(b) — 2 cases
Ledsinger v. Burmeister, 318 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“Section 302 of the act, MCL 37.2302; MSA 3.548(302), makes it unlawful to: "(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion,…”
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.