Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 408 / Act 390 of 1978
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.483 (2026)

Discrimination; complaint; investigation; rehiring or reinstatement of employee with back pay; review of determination.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PAYMENT OF WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS


Act 390 of 1978


408.483 Discrimination; complaint; investigation; rehiring or reinstatement of employee with back pay; review of determination.

Sec. 13.

    (1) An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or is about to testify in a proceeding, or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of an employee or others of a right afforded by this act.

    (2) An employee who believes that he or she is discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in violation of this section may file a complaint with the department alleging the discrimination within 30 days after the violation occurs. Upon receipt of the complaint, the department shall cause an investigation to be made. If, upon the investigation, the department determines that this section was violated, the department shall order the rehiring or reinstatement of an employee to his or her former position with back pay.

    (3) An employer may seek review of the department's determination by following the procedure provided in section 11(4) to (9).

History: 1978, Act 390, Imd. Eff. Aug. 1, 1978 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 602, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 1979

Compiler's Notes:

    For creation of bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation within department of consumer and industry services; transfer of powers and duties of bureau of worker's compensation and unemployment agency to bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation; transfer of powers and duties of director of bureau of worker's compensation and director of unemployment agency to director of bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation; and, transfer of powers and duties of wage and hour division of worker's compensation board of magistrates to bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation, see E.R.O. No. 2002-1, compiled at MCL 445.2004 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

    For creation of the new wage and hour division as a type II agency within the department of labor and economic growth, see E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.

    For transfer of powers and duties of the former wage and hour division of the department of consumer and industry services, transferred to the bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation, to the new wage and hour division within the department of labor and economic growth by type II transfer, see E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.

    For the transfer of powers and duties of the department of licensing and regulatory affairs to the department of labor and economic opportunity, see E.R.O. No. 2019-3, compiled at MCL 125.1998.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case: Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network, 916 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network, 916 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 30× “" Notably, this Court has previously addressed this issue and concluded that to fall within the plain meaning of MCL 408.”
Cockels v. Int'l Bus. Expositions, Inc, 406 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “MCL 408.483; MSA 17.277(13) provides in pertinent part; (1) An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or is…”
Russell S. Duncan v. Rolm Mil-Spec Computers & Loral Corp., 917 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1990). “Duncan notes that the legislature employed the mandatory language “shall” only with regard to a claim under section 408.”
Faulkner v. Flowers, 522 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “The provision relevant to this case, MCL 408.483(2); MSA 17.277(13X2), provides: An employee who believes that he or she is discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in violation of this section may file a complaint with the department alleging the…”
Conrad v. Rofin-Sinar, Inc., 762 F. Supp. 167 (E.D. Mich. 1991). “The decision offers no support for the position that all wage claims, even if they are not based on a provision in the MWFBA, must be filed with the Michigan Department of Labor.”
Reo v. Lane Bryant, Inc, 536 N.W.2d 556 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “MCL 408.483(1); MSA 17.277(13X1)-provides, in pertinent part: An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted, a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or…”
Joel Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 15× “This provision states: (1) An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or is about to testify in a proceeding,…”
Joel Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 15× “This provision states: (1) An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or is about to testify in a proceeding,…”
Joel Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 12× “Simply exercising a right on one’s own behalf would not bring an employee within the purview of [MCL 408.483].” Reo, 211 Mich App at 367 .”
Joel Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 12× “Simply exercising a right on one’s own behalf would not bring an employee within the purview of [MCL 408.483].” Reo, 211 Mich App at 367 .”
Matthew Wilk v. State Bank (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “] This Court has concluded that this anti-retaliatory provision applies only if an employee is “exercising a right afforded by the act on behalf of another employee or other person.”
Naranjo v. Belfor USA Grp., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2023). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.483 . Section 408.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.483(1) — 9 cases
Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network, 916 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “" Notably, this Court has previously addressed this issue and concluded that to fall within the plain meaning of MCL 408.”
Cockels v. Int'l Bus. Expositions, Inc, 406 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 408.483; MSA 17.277(13) provides in pertinent part; (1) An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or is…”
Joel Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “This provision states: (1) An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or is about to testify in a proceeding,…”
Joel Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “This provision states: (1) An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or is about to testify in a proceeding,…”
Joel Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Simply exercising a right on one’s own behalf would not bring an employee within the purview of [MCL 408.483].” Reo, 211 Mich App at 367 .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.483(2) — 8 cases
Faulkner v. Flowers, 522 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “The provision relevant to this case, MCL 408.483(2); MSA 17.277(13X2), provides: An employee who believes that he or she is discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in violation of this section may file a complaint with the department alleging the…”
Conrad v. Rofin-Sinar, Inc., 762 F. Supp. 167 (E.D. Mich. 1991). “The decision offers no support for the position that all wage claims, even if they are not based on a provision in the MWFBA, must be filed with the Michigan Department of Labor.”
Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network, 916 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “" Notably, this Court has previously addressed this issue and concluded that to fall within the plain meaning of MCL 408.”
Reo v. Lane Bryant, Inc, 536 N.W.2d 556 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “MCL 408.483(1); MSA 17.277(13X1)-provides, in pertinent part: An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted, a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or…”
Joel Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Simply exercising a right on one’s own behalf would not bring an employee within the purview of [MCL 408.483].” Reo, 211 Mich App at 367 .”
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.