Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.146 (2026)

Right to equal public accommodations; separation of facilities according to sex.

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

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE


Act 328 of 1931


750.146 Right to equal public accommodations; separation of facilities according to sex.

Sec. 146.

    All persons within the jurisdiction of this state shall be entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of inns, hotels, motels, government housing, restaurants, eating houses, barber shops, billiard parlors, stores, public conveyances on land and water, theatres, motion picture houses, public educational institutions, in elevators, on escalators, in all methods of air transportation and all other places of public accommodation, amusement, and recreation, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all citizens and to all citizens alike, with uniform prices. Rooming facilities at educational, religious, charitable or nonprofit institutions or organizations, and restrooms and locker room facilities in places of public accommodation may be separated according to sex.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- Am. 1937, Act 117, Eff. Oct. 29, 1937 ;-- CL 1948, 750.146 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 101, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 1956, Act 182, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 116, Imd. Eff. Apr. 18, 1972

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 1 of Act 130 of 1885, being How., § 9074a; CL 1897, § 11759; CL 1915, § 15570; CL 1929, § 16809; and Act 375 of 1919.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Scalise v. Boy Scouts of Am., 692 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Scalise v. Boy Scouts of Am., 692 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “In April 2001, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging criminal violation of Michigan public accommodation laws, MCL 750.146 et seq., sometimes referred to as the equal accommodation act.”
Ledsinger v. Burmeister, 318 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “The various counts of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint allege liability for: 1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 2) slander; 3) violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.”
Cassandra Williams v. Port Huron Area Sch. Dist, 455 F. App'x 612 (6th Cir. 2012). “; the Michigan Equal Accommodation Act, MCL 750.146, et seq.; and claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
McKibbin v. Corp. & Sec. Comm'n, 119 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1963). · cites it 2× “It is said that Michigan has had a long history of civil rights legislation, beginning with PA 1885, No 130, as amended, later incorporated in the penal code and strengthened by amendment (CL 1948 and CLS 1956, § 750.146 et seq. [Stat Ann and Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp § 28.”
Ferrell v. Vic Tanny Int'l, Inc, 357 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “MCL 750.146, 750.147; MSA 28.343, 28.344.”
Bormuth v. Dahlem Conservancy, 837 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Mich. 2011). “§ 750.146 (discussing equal access in public accommodations).”
Magid v. Oak Park Racquet Club Assocs., Ltd., 269 N.W.2d 661 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “The four counts were based on: 1) MCL 750.146; MSA 28.343; 2) MCL 750.147; MSA 28.”
Slayton v. Michigan Host, Inc, 376 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “Partially dispositive to our holding in that case was our finding that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act did not replace or repeal any portion of the public accommodations act.”
Clarke v. K Mart Corp., 495 N.W.2d 820 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 750.146; MSA 28.343. The enforcement section of this act makes it a misdemeanor to "directly or indirectly refuse, withhold from or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges” of stores and further allows civil enforcement and treble…”
Tucich v. Dearborn Indoor Racquet Club, 309 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff claims that the differential membership charge is in violation of the Michigan public accommodations act, 1931 PA 328 , MCL 750.146 et seq.; MSA 28.343 et seq., is an illegal contract and constitutes a conspiracy in restraint of trade.”
Bowen v. Nelson Credit Centers, Inc, 357 N.W.2d 811 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against both Nelson Credit and American Health on April 29, 1981, alleging breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.”
Riegler v. Holiday Skating Rink, Inc, 227 N.W.2d 759 (Mich. 1975). “1 MCLA 750.146; MSA 28.343. 2 We invited the Civil Rights Commission to file a brief amicus curiae addressing questions we posed.”
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.