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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701 (2026)

Prohibited conduct.

✓ 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


37.2701 Prohibited conduct.

Sec. 701.

    Two or more persons shall not conspire to, or a person shall not:

    (a) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act.

    (b) Aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in a violation of this act.

    (c) Attempt directly or indirectly to commit an act prohibited by this act.

    (d) Willfully interfere with the performance of a duty or the exercise of a power by the commission or 1 of its members or authorized representatives.

    (e) Willfully obstruct or prevent a person from complying with this act or an order issued or rule promulgated under this act.

    (f) Coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this act.

History: 1976, Act 453, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 124, Imd. Eff. June 29, 1992

AdminRule Notes:

    R 37.1 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 210 cases (81 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Rymal v. Baergen, 686 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rymal v. Baergen, 686 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 16× “As noted earlier, the antiretaliation provision of the CRA, MCL 37.2701, clearly prohibits "[t]wo or more persons .”
Rymal v. Baergen, 262 Mich. App. 274 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 16× “As noted earlier, the antiretaliation provision of the CRA, MCL 37.2701, clearly prohibits “[t]wo or more *297 persons .”
Barrett v. Kirtland Cmty. Coll., 628 N.W.2d 63 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “After plaintiff’s discharge, KCC administrators contacted the police when they noticed that several college-owned books and files were missing from plaintiff’s office.”
Major v. Vill. of Newberry, 892 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “MCL 37.2701. A person alleging a violation of the act may bring a civil action for damages in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred, or for the county where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has his principal place of…”
Garg v. MacOmb Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 696 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 4× “§ 37.2701 provides, in pertinent part: Two or more persons shall not conspire to, or a person shall not: (a) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified,…”
Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co., 697 N.W.2d 851 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “[23] Notwithstanding Justice Weaver's view that the Legislature could have acted in a more "straightforward manner" in communicating its intentions, we cannot think of a more clearcut statement on its part concerning liability under the statute.”
Phillips v. Butterball Farms Co., 531 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 4× “The majority in Dunbar acknowledged that a retaliatory discharge is a type of wrongful discharge, but did not explain how the explicit statutory codification of public policy against retaliatory discharge in workers' compensation cases transforms such activity into a tort action…”
Chen v. Wayne State Univ., 771 N.W.2d 820 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “The CRA also prohibits employers from retaliating against a person “because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act.”
Makini Jackson v. Genesee Cnty. Road Comm'n, 999 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2021). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701 . The plaintiff must demonstrate four elements to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under both Title VII and ELCRA: (1) she engaged in protected activity, (2) the defendant was aware of the protected activity, (3) “the defendant took an…”
Novak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 599 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff also claims that defendants violated § 701 of the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2701; MSA 3.548(701). He alleges violations of subsections e and f, which state: Two or more persons shall not conspire to, or a person shall not: * * * (e) Willfully obstruct or prevent a…”
Dudewicz v. Norris Schmid, Inc, 503 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “[6] Also noted were the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2701; MSA 3.548(701), the Handicappers' Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.”
Prysak v. R L Polk Co., 483 N.W.2d 629 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “, MCL 37.2701; MSA 3.548(701) (Civil Rights Act), and MCL 15.”
Show all 210 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701(A) — 1 case
Barrett v. Kirtland Cmty. Coll., 628 N.W.2d 63 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “After plaintiff’s discharge, KCC administrators contacted the police when they noticed that several college-owned books and files were missing from plaintiff’s office.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701(a) — 96 cases
Barrett v. Kirtland Cmty. Coll., 628 N.W.2d 63 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “After plaintiff’s discharge, KCC administrators contacted the police when they noticed that several college-owned books and files were missing from plaintiff’s office.”
Rymal v. Baergen, 686 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “As noted earlier, the antiretaliation provision of the CRA, MCL 37.2701, clearly prohibits "[t]wo or more persons .”
Rymal v. Baergen, 262 Mich. App. 274 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “As noted earlier, the antiretaliation provision of the CRA, MCL 37.2701, clearly prohibits “[t]wo or more *297 persons .”
Major v. Vill. of Newberry, 892 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 37.2701. A person alleging a violation of the act may bring a civil action for damages in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred, or for the county where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has his principal place of…”
Peña v. Ingham Cnty. Road Comm'n, 660 N.W.2d 351 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701(b) — 5 cases
Wrobbel v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 17, 638 F. Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
Melissa Mays v. Governor (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Melissa Mays v. Governor (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Richard Miller v. Michigan Dep't of Corr. (Mich. 2024).
Boshaw v. Midland Brewing Co. (E.D. Mich. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701(c) — 1 case
Richard Miller v. Michigan Dep't of Corr. (Mich. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701(d) — 1 case
Richard Miller v. Michigan Dep't of Corr. (Mich. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701(e) — 2 cases
Novak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 599 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “Plaintiff also claims that defendants violated § 701 of the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2701; MSA 3.548(701). He alleges violations of subsections e and f, which state: Two or more persons shall not conspire to, or a person shall not: * * * (e) Willfully obstruct or prevent a…”
Richard Miller v. Michigan Dep't of Corr. (Mich. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701(f) — 2 cases
Richard Miller v. Michigan Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Richard Miller v. Michigan Dep't of Corr. (Mich. 2024).
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.