Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.48 (2026)

"Unemployed" explained; amounts considered wages or remuneration; leave of absence; elected layoff; COVID-19 absence.

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

MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ACT


Act 1 of 1936 (Ex. Sess.)


421.48 "Unemployed" explained; amounts considered wages or remuneration; leave of absence; elected layoff; COVID-19 absence.

Sec. 48.

    (1) An individual shall be considered unemployed for any week during which he or she performs no services and for which remuneration is not payable to the individual, or for any week of less than full-time work if the remuneration payable to the individual is less than 1-1/2 times his or her weekly benefit rate, except that for payable weeks of benefits beginning after the effective date of the amendatory act that added section 15a and before October 1, 2015, an individual is considered unemployed for any week or less of full-time work if the remuneration payable to the individual is less than 1-3/5 times his or her weekly benefit rate. However, any loss of remuneration incurred by an individual during any week resulting from any cause other than the failure of the individual's employing unit to furnish full-time, regular employment shall be included as remuneration earned for purposes of this section and section 27(c). The total amount of remuneration lost shall be determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the unemployment agency. For the purposes of this act, an individual's weekly benefit rate means the weekly benefit rate determined pursuant to section 27(b).

    (2) All amounts paid to a claimant by an employing unit or former employing unit for a vacation or a holiday, and amounts paid in the form of retroactive pay, pay in lieu of notice, severance payments, salary continuation, or other remuneration intended by the employing unit as continuing wages or other monetary consideration as the result of the separation, excluding SUB payments as described in section 44, shall be considered remuneration in determining whether an individual is unemployed under this section and also in determining his or her benefit payments under section 27(c), for the period designated by the contract or agreement providing for the payment, or if there is no contractual specification of the period to which payments shall be allocated, then for the period designated by the employing unit or former employing unit. However, payments for a vacation or holiday, or the right to which has irrevocably vested, after 14 days following a vacation or holiday shall not be considered wages or remuneration within the meaning of this section.

    (3) An individual shall not be considered to be unemployed during any leave of absence from work granted by an employer either at the request of the individual or pursuant to an agreement with the individual's duly authorized bargaining agent, or in accordance with law. An individual shall neither be considered not unemployed nor on a leave of absence solely because the individual elects to be laid off, pursuant to an option provided under a collective bargaining agreement or written employer plan that permits an election, if there is a temporary layoff because of lack of work and the employer has consented to the election. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, with respect to claims for weeks of benefits beginning before April 1, 2021, an individual on a leave of absence because the individual self-isolated or self-quarantined in response to elevated risk from COVID-19 because he or she is immunocompromised, displayed a commonly recognized principal symptom of COVID-19 that was not otherwise associated with a known medical or physical condition of the individual, had contact in the last 14 days with an individual with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, or needed to care for an individual with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, may be considered to be unemployed unless the individual is already on sick leave or receives a disability benefit.

    

History: 1936, Ex. Sess., Act 1, Imd. Eff. Dec. 24, 1936 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 324, Imd. Eff. June 22, 1939 ;-- Am. 1942, 2nd Ex. Sess., Act 18, Imd. Eff. Feb. 27, 1942 ;-- Am. 1943, Act 246, Imd. Eff. June 1, 1943 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 360, Imd. Eff. July 8, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 421.48 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 251, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1951 ;-- Am. 1954, Act 197, Imd. Eff. May 7, 1954 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 281, Eff. July 15, 1955 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 164, Imd. Eff. July 24, 1983 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 192, Imd. Eff. Apr. 26, 2002 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 269, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 2011 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 229, Imd. Eff. Oct. 20, 2020 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 258, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 2020

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: Ford Motor Co. v. Jackson, 249 N.W.2d 29 (Mich. 1976).
Ford Motor Co. v. Jackson, 249 N.W.2d 29 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 8× “" MCLA 421.48; MSA 17.552: "All amounts paid to a claimant by an employing unit or former employing unit for a vacation or a holiday, and amounts paid in the form of retroactive pay, or in lieu of notice, shall be deemed remuneration in determining whether an individual is…”
Motycka v. Gen. Motors Corp., 669 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “” Any amounts paid to a claimant in the form of retroactive pay or in lieu of notice are considered remuneration for purposes of determining unemployment status.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Erves, 249 N.W.2d 41 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 3× “"Unemployment” is defined in MCLA 421.48; MSA 17.552: "An individual shall be deemed 'unemployed’ with respect to any week during which he performs no services and with respect to which no remuneration is payable to him, or with respect to any week of less than full-time work if…”
Malone v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 90 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. 1958). · cites it 8× “" CLS 1952, § 421.48 (Stat Ann 1951 Cum Supp § 17.552).”
Bauserman v. Unemployment Ins. Agency, 931 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 2019). “See **177 MCL 421.48(1). The Agency sent Williams a request to provide information regarding his employment with Wingfoot.”
I. M. Dach Underwear Co. v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 80 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. 1956). · cites it 4× “530]) and (CLS 1952, § 421.48 [Stat Ann 1951 Cum Supp § 17.552]).”
Chrysler Corp. v. Washington, 217 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “The term "unemployed" is defined in § 48 of the act, MCLA 421.48; MSA 17.552; the term "week" is defined in § 50 of the act, MCLA 421.”
Logan v. Manpower of Lansing, Inc., 847 N.W.2d 679 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “We note that claimant’s reliance on the fact that she was never “unemployed” under § 48(1) of the MESA, MCL 421.48(1), is misplaced. The disqualification under § 29(l)(a) does not require an individual to have been “unemployed” in order to be disqualified from receiving benefits.”
Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Vulcan Forging Co., 134 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. 1965). · cites it 2× “The statutory language to which we refer appears in CLS 1961, § 421.48 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.552), and was first added to the act by PA 1951, No 251, which significantly also repealed the section 29 disqualification for paid vacations.”
Rich Mfg. Corp. v. Lindsey, 137 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. 1965). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff contends that payments made on June 30th were vacation payment and, hence, defendants were not unemployed within the meaning of the act because, under the meaning of section 48 of the Michigan employment security act (CLS 1961, § 421.48 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.552])…”
Vanderlaan v. Tri-Cnty. Cmty. Hosp., 530 N.W.2d 186 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “MCL 421.48(2); MSA 17.552(2). If the payments were in the form of termination, separation, or severance pay, they are not remuneration and Vanderlaan was entitled to unemployment benefits from the date of termination.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Erves, 236 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. 1975). · cites it 2× “"Unemployment” is defined in MCLA 421.48; MSA 17.552(§ 48): "An individual shall be deemed 'unemployed’ with respect to any week during which he performs no services and with respect to which no remuneration is payable to him, or with respect to any week of less than full-time…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.48(1) — 6 cases
Bauserman v. Unemployment Ins. Agency, 931 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 2019). “See **177 MCL 421.48(1). The Agency sent Williams a request to provide information regarding his employment with Wingfoot.”
Logan v. Manpower of Lansing, Inc., 847 N.W.2d 679 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “We note that claimant’s reliance on the fact that she was never “unemployed” under § 48(1) of the MESA, MCL 421.48(1), is misplaced. The disqualification under § 29(l)(a) does not require an individual to have been “unemployed” in order to be disqualified from receiving benefits.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.48(2) — 4 cases
Motycka v. Gen. Motors Corp., 669 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “” Any amounts paid to a claimant in the form of retroactive pay or in lieu of notice are considered remuneration for purposes of determining unemployment status.”
Vanderlaan v. Tri-Cnty. Cmty. Hosp., 530 N.W.2d 186 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “MCL 421.48(2); MSA 17.552(2). If the payments were in the form of termination, separation, or severance pay, they are not remuneration and Vanderlaan was entitled to unemployment benefits from the date of termination.”
Smith v. Albion, 542 N.W.2d 298 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.48(3) — 1 case
Motycka v. Gen. Motors Corp., 669 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “” Any amounts paid to a claimant in the form of retroactive pay or in lieu of notice are considered remuneration for purposes of determining unemployment status.”
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.