Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.504 (2026)

Copy of information in personnel record; fee; mailing.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

BULLARD-PLAWECKI EMPLOYEE RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

Act 397 of 1978

423.504 Copy of information in personnel record; fee; mailing.

Sec. 4.

After the review provided in section 3, an employee may obtain a copy of the information or part of the information contained in the employee's personnel record. An employer may charge a fee for providing a copy of information contained in the personnel record. The fee shall be limited to the actual incremental cost of duplicating the information. If an employee demonstrates that he or she is unable to review his or her personnel record at the employing unit, then the employer, upon that employee's written request, shall mail a copy of the requested record to the employee.

History: 1978, Act 397, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979

PopularName Notes:

Right-to-Know

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Scuderi v. Monumental Life Ins., 344 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scuderi v. Monumental Life Ins., 344 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “§ 423.504.” It is not disputed that Plaintiff requested a copy of her personnel file by letters dated June 3 and July 1, 2003, i.”

Thomas G Stauffer v. Acrisure LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “” MCL 423.504. And “[i]f an employee demonstrates that he or she is unable to review his or her personnel record at the employing unit, then the employer, upon that employee’s written request, shall mail a copy of the requested record to the employee.”

Crockett v. Audi of Am., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2024). “Laws § 423.504 . Crockett requested his personnel file two weeks after his termination and received only a one-page record in response.”

Mary Lou Bonacci v. Ferris State Univ. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “503 nor demonstrated that she was unable to review her record at the employing unit under MCL 423.504. The trial court concluded that CMDA failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry that its Bullard-Plawecki claim was well-grounded in fact before signing the complaint where a review…”

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.