Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 418 / Act 317 of 1969
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.151 (2026)

Employers subject to act.

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

WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969


Act 317 of 1969


418.151 Employers subject to act.

Sec. 151.

    The following constitutes employers subject to this act:

    (a) The state; each county, city, township, incorporated village, and school district; each incorporated public board or public commission in this state authorized by law to hold property and to sue or be sued generally; and any library in a county with a population less than 600,000 established under Act No. 138 of the Public Acts of 1917, being sections 397.301 to 397.305 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, if the library board by resolution expresses its intention to be considered as a separate employer from the county where it is located for purposes of this act.

    (b) Every person, firm, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, and private corporation, including any public service corporation, who has any person in service under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, unless those employees excluded according to the provisions of section 161(5) comprise all of the employees of the person, firm, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation.

History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 202, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 103, Imd. Eff. July 30, 1985 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 206, Imd. Eff. Nov. 29, 1995

Compiler's Notes:

    For legislative intent as to severability, see Compiler's note to MCL 418.213.

PopularName Notes:

Act 317
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2023 · leading case: Betts v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs., 271 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Betts v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs., 271 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 4× “' Moreover, MCLA 418.151 [MSA 17.237(151)] which defines employer is more restrictive in its definition of a private employer than it is of a public employer.”
Rodwell v. Pro Football, Inc., 206 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “) The appeal board found that MCLA 418.151; MSA 17.237(151) 2 was applicable.”
Gallegos v. Glaser Crandell Co., 202 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. 1972). · cites it 2× “Section 151 (MCLA 418.151; MSA 17.237[151]), states: *661 "(1) The following shall constitute employers subject to the provisions of this act: "(a) The state and each county, city, township, incorporated village and school district therein and each incorporated public board or…”
Tulppo v. Ontonagon Cnty., 207 Mich. App. 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “In concluding that National Guard service was not an employment covered by the act, the magistrate noted that the wdca lacked any reference to the federal government as a covered employer or to members of the National Guard as covered employees in §§ 151(1) and 161, MCL…”
Lopez v. Union Carbide Corp., 83 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Mich. 2000). · cites it 3× “Section 418.151 defines employers subject to the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act and provides, in relevant part, The following constitutes employers subject to this act: .”
Davidson v. Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 272 N.W.2d 740 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “See also MCL 418.151, 418.161; MSA 17.237(151), 17.”
Viele v. DCMA Int'l, Inc., 536 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “[MCL 418.151(b); MSA 17.237(151)(b).] A plain reading of § 115 gives no support to the bureau’s ruling that Southwest Marine is not subject to the act because it does not employ three or more employees in Michigan.”
Oakley v. Dep't of Mental Health, 355 N.W.2d 650 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “237(115); MCL 418.151; MSA 17.237(151); MCL 418.161; MSA 17.”
Bendion v. Penobscot Mgmt. Co., 570 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “Because the state is an employer subject to the WDCA, MCL 418.151; MSA 17.237(151), National Guard wages could properly be included in the calculation of the average weekly wage.”
Michael Lucero v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Further, MCL 418.151(a) expressly includes the state and its political subdivisions in the list of those who are subject to the WDCA: The following constitutes employers subject to this act: (a) The state; each county, city, township, incorporated village, and school district;…”
Michael Lucero v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Further, MCL 418.151(a) expressly includes the state and its political subdivisions in the list of those who are subject to the WDCA: The following constitutes employers subject to this act: (a) The state; each county, city, township, incorporated village, and school district;…”
20230202_C358037_51_358037.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 418.151(b). An implied-in-fact contract “arises when services are performed by one who at the time expects compensation from another who expects at the time to pay therefor.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.151(1) — 1 case
Tulppo v. Ontonagon Cnty., 207 Mich. App. 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “In concluding that National Guard service was not an employment covered by the act, the magistrate noted that the wdca lacked any reference to the federal government as a covered employer or to members of the National Guard as covered employees in §§ 151(1) and 161, MCL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.151(a) — 2 cases
Michael Lucero v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Further, MCL 418.151(a) expressly includes the state and its political subdivisions in the list of those who are subject to the WDCA: The following constitutes employers subject to this act: (a) The state; each county, city, township, incorporated village, and school district;…”
Michael Lucero v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Further, MCL 418.151(a) expressly includes the state and its political subdivisions in the list of those who are subject to the WDCA: The following constitutes employers subject to this act: (a) The state; each county, city, township, incorporated village, and school district;…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.151(b) — 5 cases
Lopez v. Union Carbide Corp., 83 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Mich. 2000). “Section 418.151 defines employers subject to the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act and provides, in relevant part, The following constitutes employers subject to this act: .”
Viele v. DCMA Int'l, Inc., 536 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “[MCL 418.151(b); MSA 17.237(151)(b).] A plain reading of § 115 gives no support to the bureau’s ruling that Southwest Marine is not subject to the act because it does not employ three or more employees in Michigan.”
20230202_C358037_51_358037.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 418.151(b). An implied-in-fact contract “arises when services are performed by one who at the time expects compensation from another who expects at the time to pay therefor.”
Michael Lucero v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Further, MCL 418.151(a) expressly includes the state and its political subdivisions in the list of those who are subject to the WDCA: The following constitutes employers subject to this act: (a) The state; each county, city, township, incorporated village, and school district;…”
Michael Lucero v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Further, MCL 418.151(a) expressly includes the state and its political subdivisions in the list of those who are subject to the WDCA: The following constitutes employers subject to this act: (a) The state; each county, city, township, incorporated village, and school district;…”
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.