Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 423 / Act 397 of 1978

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.509

Investigation of criminal activity by employer; separate file of information; notice to employee; destruction or notation of final disposition of file and copies; prohibited use of information; release of information to certain law enforcement agencies.

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


423.509 Investigation of criminal activity by employer; separate file of information; notice to employee; destruction or notation of final disposition of file and copies; prohibited use of information; release of information to certain law enforcement agencies.

Sec. 9.

    (1) If an employer has reasonable cause to believe that an employee is engaged in criminal activity that might result in loss or damage to the employer's property or disruption of the employer's business operation, and the employer is engaged in an investigation, then the employer may keep a separate file of information relating to the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation or after 2 years, whichever comes first, the employee must be notified that an investigation was or is being conducted of the suspected criminal activity described in this section. Upon completion of the investigation, if disciplinary action is not taken, the investigative file and all copies of the material in it must be destroyed.

    (2) An employer that is a criminal justice agency and that is involved in the investigation of an alleged criminal activity or the violation of an agency rule by an employee shall maintain a separate confidential file of information relating to the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, if disciplinary action is not taken, the employee must be notified that an investigation was conducted. If the investigation reveals that the allegations are unfounded or unsubstantiated or if disciplinary action is not taken, the separate file must contain a notation of the final disposition of the investigation and information in the file must not be used in any future consideration for promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or disciplinary action. The employer may release information in the separate file to a prospective employing law enforcement agency if the information is part of a record regarding the reason or reasons for, and circumstances surrounding, a separation of service under section 5 of the law enforcement officer separation of service record act, 2017 PA 128, MCL 28.565. The employer shall release information in the separate file to the Michigan commission on law enforcement standards upon the request of the Michigan commission on law enforcement standards.

History: 1978, Act 397, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 521, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

PopularName Notes:

Right-to-Know
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. Saginaw County Sheriff
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. Saginaw County Sheriff (1994) michctapp “[MCL 423.509; MSA 17.62(9).] Thus, the Legislature, in an act designed to extend an employee’s ability to gain access to the employer’s files beyond the rights afforded to the public by the foia, 3 determined that the employee should not be allowed access to the records of the…”
Bukowski v. City of Detroit (2007) mich · cites it 2× “[3] Defendant also maintained that the Employee Right to Know Act, MCL 423.509(2), protected from disclosure certain information taken from Brown's personnel file.”
Earl Booth v. Department of Corrections (2020) michctapp · cites it 24× “Section 9, MCL 423.509, sets forth the instances in which separate investigative files may be kept and not disclosed by the employer to the employee.”
Cullen v. St. Ignace, City of (2023) miwd · cites it 7× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.509 (2). There is no genuine dispute that the records here discussed an investigation of alleged criminal activity and/or a violation of the City’s departmental policies by Cullen.”
Michigan State Police Troopers Assn Inc v. Dept of State Police (2020) michctapp · cites it 4× “” Plaintiff asserts that the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act (ERKA), MCL 423.509(2), requires that reports generated after IA investigations must be kept in a separate, confidential file.”
Earl D Booth v. Department of Corrections (2018) michctapp · cites it 3× “[MCL 423.509(1).] Critically, defendants argue that AIPAS report #9010 does not qualify as a personnel record within the meaning of the ERKA because the document falls within the exception set forth in MCL 423.”
Earl D Booth v. Department of Corrections (2018) michctapp · cites it 3× “[MCL 423.509(1).] Critically, defendants argue that AIPAS report #9010 does not qualify as a personnel record within the meaning of the ERKA because the document falls within the exception set forth in MCL 423.”
Michigan State Police Troopers Assn Inc v. Dept of State Police (2020) michctapp · cites it 2× “More specifically, Count I alleged that any report created as a result of an internal affairs investigation is a record that must be kept in a separate, “confidential” file under ERKA, MCL 423.509(2). Thus, these “confidential” records constitute records that are exempt from…”
George K Truchan v. Charter Township of Adrian (2015) michctapp “509 in turn provides: If an employer has reasonable cause to believe that an employee is engaged in criminal activity which may result in loss or damage to the employer’s property or disruption of the employer’s business operation, and the employer is engaged in an…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.509(1) — 3 cases
Earl Booth v. Department of Corrections (2020) michctapp “Section 9, MCL 423.509, sets forth the instances in which separate investigative files may be kept and not disclosed by the employer to the employee.”
Earl D Booth v. Department of Corrections (2018) michctapp “[MCL 423.509(1).] Critically, defendants argue that AIPAS report #9010 does not qualify as a personnel record within the meaning of the ERKA because the document falls within the exception set forth in MCL 423.”
Earl D Booth v. Department of Corrections (2018) michctapp “[MCL 423.509(1).] Critically, defendants argue that AIPAS report #9010 does not qualify as a personnel record within the meaning of the ERKA because the document falls within the exception set forth in MCL 423.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.509(2) — 4 cases
Bukowski v. City of Detroit (2007) mich “[3] Defendant also maintained that the Employee Right to Know Act, MCL 423.509(2), protected from disclosure certain information taken from Brown's personnel file.”
Earl Booth v. Department of Corrections (2020) michctapp “Section 9, MCL 423.509, sets forth the instances in which separate investigative files may be kept and not disclosed by the employer to the employee.”
Michigan State Police Troopers Assn Inc v. Dept of State Police (2020) michctapp “” Plaintiff asserts that the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act (ERKA), MCL 423.509(2), requires that reports generated after IA investigations must be kept in a separate, confidential file.”
Michigan State Police Troopers Assn Inc v. Dept of State Police (2020) michctapp “More specifically, Count I alleged that any report created as a result of an internal affairs investigation is a record that must be kept in a separate, “confidential” file under ERKA, MCL 423.509(2). Thus, these “confidential” records constitute records that are exempt from…”
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.