Michigan — Workplace Discrimination

Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, height, weight, familial status, and marital status. The Act defines "employer" as a person with one or more employees, covering substantially smaller employers than federal Title VII (which requires 15 employees). The prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and disability became effective February 13, 2024, under 2023 PA 6.

Source: Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2102 (protected classes); Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2201(a) (employer definition)

An individual alleging a violation of ELCRA may bring a civil action in Michigan circuit court for injunctive relief or damages (including injury or loss caused by the violation), or both. The statute of limitations for such civil actions is three years from the date of the alleged discriminatory act. Courts may award reasonable attorney fees and witness fees to a prevailing complainant.

Source: Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2801 (civil action and remedies); Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2802 (attorney fees); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10) (three-year limitations period)

Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act provides two independent enforcement paths for individuals alleging workplace discrimination: filing an administrative complaint with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) or bringing a civil lawsuit directly in circuit court. Unlike federal anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ELCRA does not require a complainant to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. A complainant may pursue either path or both paths.

Direct civil action under MCL 37.2801

Michigan Compiled Laws § 37.2801(1) states: "A person alleging a violation of this act may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief or damages, or both." The statute imposes no precondition of filing with or obtaining approval from MDCR. The civil action may be brought in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred or where the respondent resides or has a principal place of business. MCL 37.2801(2). As used in this section, "damages" means damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of ELCRA, including reasonable attorney's fees. MCL 37.2801(3). The statute of limitations for a civil action under ELCRA is three years from the date of the alleged discriminatory act. MCL 600.5805(10).

Alternative MDCR administrative complaint process

A complainant may instead (or additionally) file an administrative complaint with MDCR. The administrative filing deadline is 180 days from the alleged discriminatory act. If the incident falls within MDCR's jurisdiction and the 180-day window, MDCR prepares a formal complaint for the complainant to sign and return. Once MDCR receives the signed complaint, it is placed on the docket and a copy is sent to both the claimant and the respondent. MDCR then conducts an impartial investigation; during the investigation, both the claimant and respondent have the opportunity to present evidence. The investigation may include a site visit, interviews with witnesses, and analysis of documents. MDCR may schedule a conference with both parties to explore possible resolutions.

Contrast with federal Title VII exhaustion requirement

The ELCRA's direct-access structure diverges sharply from federal employment-discrimination law. Under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a complainant must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and receive a right-to-sue notice before bringing a federal court action. In Michigan, a deferral state, the EEOC filing deadline is 300 days from the alleged discriminatory act. ELCRA eliminates this administrative gate entirely: a complainant may proceed straight to circuit court without ever contacting MDCR, and the three-year statute of limitations affords substantially more time to file than the EEOC's 300-day window or MDCR's 180-day administrative deadline.

No election of remedies

Because the statute authorizes a civil action without requiring administrative exhaustion or any reference to MDCR proceedings, a complainant is not required to choose between the two paths. The MDCR administrative process and the circuit court civil action operate independently. Filing an MDCR complaint does not preclude filing or continuing a civil lawsuit, and filing a civil lawsuit does not preclude filing or continuing an MDCR complaint, subject to the respective deadlines (180 days for MDCR, three years for circuit court).

Source: Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2801 (civil action, venue, damages); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10) (three-year limitations period); MDCR Complaint Investigation Process (180-day administrative deadline and investigation procedures)

Under Michigan’s Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), a prevailing complainant in an employment discrimination or retaliation claim may obtain both injunctive and monetary relief — with no statutory caps on compensatory damages — but punitive damages are not available.

Equitable (injunctive) relief. A prevailing party may receive court-ordered changes such as reinstatement or other equitable measures (MCL 37.2801(1)).

Compensatory damages, including attorney’s fees. The statute defines “damages” to include injury or loss caused by a violation, including reasonable attorney’s fees (MCL 37.2801(3)). That covers lost wages, emotional distress, and other tangible harms.

Litigation costs (attorney and witness fees). The court may award all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees and witness fees, to the prevailing party (MCL 37.2802).

No statutory caps on compensatory damages. ELCRA places no cap on monetary damages for injury or loss. There is no statutory maximum.

No punitive damages. Punitive or exemplary damages are not authorized under ELCRA. Michigan courts have interpreted the statute as allowing only compensatory relief (see Meyer v City of Center Line, 242 Mich App 560 (2000)).

In sum: ELCRA provides uncapped compensatory (but not punitive) damages and equitable remedies, along with litigation costs at the court’s discretion for prevailing parties.

Source: Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2801; Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2802; Meyer v. City of Center Line, 242 Mich App 560 (2000)

Michigan's Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) expressly prohibits retaliation against employees (and applicants or other persons) who either oppose conduct made unlawful by the Act or participate in investigations, proceedings, or hearings under the Act.

Statutory foundation: MCL 37.2701(a), (f)

• MCL 37.2701(a) states: "A person shall not ... retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act."
• MCL 37.2701(f) bars any person from coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with another for exercising rights under ELCRA. This language protects both direct participants and those associated with participants (see Miller v. Department of Corrections, 2024).

Third‑party and associational retaliation In Miller v. Department of Corrections (May 10, 2024), the Michigan Supreme Court confirmed that ELCRA's anti-retaliation provisions extend to "associational retaliation"—meaning that an employee who suffers adverse action because of their relationship to someone who engaged in protected activity can bring a claim under § 37.2701(a).

Standard of proof — motivating-factor causation A plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) engagement in protected activity (opposition or participation), (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection—specifically, that the protected activity was a "motivating factor" in the adverse action. Michigan courts have held that "because" as used in MCL 37.2701(a) does not require but-for causation; it is enough that the protected activity was a motivating reason, even if not the sole reason. (Garg v. Macomb County Community Mental Health Services, 472 Mich 263, 273 (2005)).

Summary ELCRA makes it unlawful to retaliate against a person who opposes discrimination, participates in ELCRA proceedings, or is closely associated with someone who does. The statutory basis is clear in MCL 37.2701(a) and (f), with Michigan Supreme Court confirmation of associational retaliation claims. The burden of proof mirrors the "motivating factor" standard from federal law, not a but-for requirement.

Source: Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701)/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-37-2701); Miller v. Department of Corrections, No. 164862, Mich. Sup. Ct. (May 10, 2024); Garg v. Macomb Cnty Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263 (2005)

Michigan law prohibits employment discrimination based on disability under both the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), Act 220 of 1976, and (as of 2023) the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), Act 453 of 1976, as amended by 2023 PA 6.

PWDCRA as Michigan’s historic and substantive disability protection The Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), MCL 37.1101 et seq., has long been Michigan’s principal statute barring disability discrimination in employment. The PWDCRA defines "disability" precisely at MCL 37.1103(d)-(e), prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities (where the disability is unrelated to job performance), and imposes a duty to accommodate unless accommodation would impose undue hardship (see MCL 37.1202; MCL 37.1210). Michigan courts interpret reasonable accommodation and undue hardship under PWDCRA independently, though often in parallel with the federal ADA.

2023 ELCRA amendment — explicit disability coverage As of February 13, 2023, ELCRA explicitly includes disability as a protected class in employment contexts (2023 PA 6, now incorporated into MCL 37.2102(1)(b)). Thus, disability-based employment discrimination is prohibited under both ELCRA and the PWDCRA, and employers should comply with both statutes.

Employer coverage — one or more employees Both PWDCRA and the amended ELCRA apply to employers with one or more employees (MCL 37.1201(b) [PWDCRA]; MCL 37.2201(a) [ELCRA]). This covers nearly all employers, well below the 15-employee floor under the federal ADA.

Enforcement and deadlines A complaint for disability discrimination under either the PWDCRA or ELCRA may be filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) within 180 days of the violation. Civil lawsuits must be filed within three years of the alleged act (MCL 37.1605 [administrative], MCL 600.5805(10) [civil action]). These deadlines apply equally under both statutes.

Summary Disability discrimination claims in Michigan may be pursued under the PWDCRA, and (since 2023) under ELCRA as well. Both statutes share employer coverage, enforcement scheme, and filing deadlines but are worded and interpreted independently. For multi-state employers, the coordinated Michigan regime is broader than the ADA in both coverage and available forums.

Source: Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1101 et seq.; ELCRA as amended, MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MDCR Jurisdiction; MDCR Complaint Guide

The Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) explicitly prohibits a range of discriminatory employment practices. These core prohibitions are found in Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1).

Specific prohibited practices:

• Hiring, discharge, compensation, and terms or conditions: Employers may not fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity or expression), height, weight, marital status, or familial status. (MCL § 37.2202(1)(a)).
• Classification or segregation: Employers may not limit, segregate, or classify employees or job applicants in such a way that deprives or tends to deprive them of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affects their status, based on a protected trait. (MCL § 37.2202(1)(b)).
• Advertisements and recruitment: Employers may not publish job postings, advertisements, or recruitment notices that indicate any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on a protected class. (MCL § 37.2202(1)(d)).

Pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions: Section 37.2202(1)(d) extends protection to discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. However, as of June 2026, ELCRA does not spell out a standalone duty for employers to provide reasonable accommodation for pregnancy or related conditions or reference an undue hardship standard in this section. (Compare ELCRA to some state statutes or the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which do contain such accommodation mandates.)

Waivers and retaliation:

• Agreements or attempts to waive rights or claims under ELCRA are void and unenforceable. (MCL § 37.2211).
• ELCRA expressly prohibits retaliation or interference against anyone who opposes a violation of the Act, files a complaint, participates in an investigation or hearing, or assists others exercising rights under ELCRA. (MCL § 37.2701(a), (f)). (See the separate section on "Retaliation" for details and recent case law developments.)

These prohibitions apply to all employers covered by ELCRA (generally, those with one or more employees).

Source: Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202 (specific practices); Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2211 (waiver prohibition); Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701 (retaliation and interference)