BULLARD-PLAWECKI EMPLOYEE RIGHT TO KNOW ACT
Act 397 of 1978
423.502 Personnel record information excluded from personnel record; use in judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.
Sec. 2.
Personnel record information which was not included in the personnel record but should have been as required by this act shall not be used by an employer in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. However, personnel record information which, in the opinion of the judge in a judicial proceeding or in the opinion of the hearing officer in a quasi-judicial proceeding, was not intentionally excluded in the personnel record, may be used by the employer in the judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, if the employee agrees or if the employee has been given a reasonable time to review the information. Material which should have been included in the personnel record shall be used at the request of the employee.
History: 1978, Act 397, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979
PopularName Notes:
Right-to-Know
Notes of Decisions
Russell v. Bronson Heating & Cooling, 345 F. Supp. 2d 761 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
· cites it 2× “MCL § 423.502 Sec. 11. If an employer violates this act, an employee may commence an action in the circuit court to compel compliance with this act.”
Beauchamp v. Great West Life Ins. Assur. Co., 918 F. Supp. 1091 (E.D. Mich. 1996).
“§ 423.502, viz., to promote an employee’s ability to examine her personnel records, because there is no evidence that the U-4 form was in any way intentionally withheld from plaintiff, who, having signed the form, was certainly aware of its existence.”
Staugaeno v. Flatrock, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2021).
· cites it 5× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.502 Plaintiff admittedly found no case law enforcing the sanctions provision of the Bullard-Plawecki Act, but she refers to a summary of the provision by the Honorable David Lawson in Burke v.”
Crockett v. Audi of Am., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2024).
· cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.502 . First, the Court is not convinced that the arbitration agreements at issue or the attached training transcripts constitute “personnel records” under the Act.”
Sande v. Masco Corp. (E.D. Mich. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.502 . Defendants do not address this argument.”
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.