ELCRA: A Cornerstone of Michigan Civil Rights

Michigan’s Shield: The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act 

Public Act 453 of 1976, known as the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), is one of the key pillars of equality in the Great Lakes State. While the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 established a bedrock for vital human rights, Michigan’s ELCRA was crafted to transcend the federal standards.  ELCRA still holds its ground as one of the most robust and comprehensive state-level laws in the United States.  The enactment is a critical safety mechanism for millions of citizens who might be bereft of legal redress under federal standards. This is actualized by the expansive definition of who is given protection, and another crucial aspect in which entities will be held liable.  Thus, ELCRA has created a framework that gives priority to individual dignity over corporate or institutional interest. 

This legislation is unique for its broad impact across the essential aspects of life of citizenry, which is inclusive of employment, housing, public accommodations, and education.¹ Although federal laws like Title VII are dominant at the national level, ELCRA affords protections that are pervasive and more intimate at the state level. Specifically, ELCRA covers more categories than Title VII. A prominent example of it is based on progressive outliers that extend protection against discrimination based on the height and weight of an individual.² The federal protection often overlooks discrimination based on an individual’s appearance unless it is in connection to his/her/their disability. On the other hand, Michigan’s one-of-a-kind legislation ensures that physical stature or body type of an individual cannot be a yardstick for his/her/their professional competence.   

Origin and Legislative History 

The Act takes its name from its two principal legislative sponsors, Daisy Elliott, a Detroit Democrat, and Melvin L. Larsen, a Republican from Oxford, whose bipartisan partnership carried the measure through the Legislature. Governor William Milliken signed it into law, that took effect on March 31, 1977, when it was widely regarded as the most far-reaching civil rights statutes in the nation.³ Rather than writing on a blank slate, ELCRA consolidated and strengthened Michigan’s earlier and more fragmented protections, building on the State Fair Employment Practices Act of 1955 and the bipartisan Civil Rights Commission established by the 1963 Michigan Constitution. Because disability fell outside the classes ELCRA enumerated, it was addressed the same year through a companion statute, the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, so that disability discrimination in Michigan is governed by that separate act rather than by ELCRA itself.⁴ In the decades that followed, the Legislature amended the Act close to twenty times, adding protections for pregnancy in 2009, folding hair texture and protective hairstyles into the definition of race through the CROWN Act, and expressly incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in 2023.⁵ 

Scope of ELCRA 

Under Title VII federal standards, an entity must employ at least 15 people to be brought within the purview of anti-discrimination laws.⁶ This threshold systematically excludes the employees of numerous small businesses, entities, and startups without recourse to federal remedies in the event of discriminatory practices. Meanwhile, ELCRA applies its mandates to all employers in the state employing one or more employees.⁷ So, for a small Michigan employer with less than 15 employees, an employee may have an ELCRA claim even where Title VII does not apply. This distinction is not limited to technicality in law; it is an economic and social stabilizer that is vital for a civilized society. Furthermore, the ELCRA domain is strengthened through dynamic elucidation by Michigan courts. Decades of jurisprudence laid down by the courts have explored the interplay between the state and federal precedents to keep ELCRA relevant.  The Act’s reach is not unlimited, however, by its own terms it does not extend to an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state or county correctional facility⁸. 

In Rouch World, LLC v Dep’t of Civil Rights⁹, Michigan Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation falls within ELCRA’s prohibition against discrimination “because of sex.” The Michigan Legislature later amended ELCRA in 2023 to expressly include sexual orientation and gender identity or expression within the statute¹⁰. This shift in interpretation was monumental for LGBTQ+ citizens of Michigan, who had to seek protection under piecemeal laws or federal precedents.  

ELCRA stands as Michigan’s cornerstone civil rights legislation. While it addresses sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and pregnancy or conditions related to pregnancy, its protections span a wide array such as religion, race (which, following Michigan’s 2023 amendments, expressly includes hair texture and protective styles historically associated with race), color, national origin, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, arrest record, and source of income.¹¹ Protection on the basis of height and weight is directed specifically to the employment context, while protection on the basis of familial status applies in the housing context. Apart from that, it also covers housing, public accommodation, education, and public services. This multifaceted scope indicates a broader ambition to eliminate discrimination in nearly every facet of public life. ELCRA declares the opportunity to obtain housing a civil right. Any form of discrimination by landlords, brokers, sellers, lenders in sales, rentals, leases, and financing is prohibited.  

In the landmark decision in Radtke v. Everett,¹² the Michigan Supreme Court delivered a seminal interpretation of ELCRA, laying down the “reasonable person” standard as the definitive metric for claims based on a hostile work environment. The Court sought to balance the protection of employees with a predictable standard for employer liability by grounding the assessment in an objective framework. The Court explained that a hostile work environment claim must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances and from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the employee’s position. 

The contours of employer liability under ELCRA have been shaped by a distinctly Michigan line of authority. In Chambers v Trettco, Inc., the Michigan Supreme Court declined to import the vicarious-liability principles that federal courts had developed under Title VII, holding instead that liability must be measured against the language of ELCRA and the State’s own precedents. For a hostile-environment claim, an employer becomes vicariously liable only where it fails to take prompt and adequate remedial action after being placed on notice.¹³ The Court reinforced this text-driven approach in Hamed v Wayne County. It anchored employer responsibility in ordinary principles of respondeat superior, drawn from the Act’s definition of “employer,” which embraces the employer’s agents, while declining to extend liability to conduct falling outside the scope of employment.¹⁴ Where a claim rests on circumstantial proof, Michigan courts apply the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, treating federal decisions as persuasive but not binding guides to the Act’s meaning.¹⁵ 

ELCRA also protects those who assert its guarantees. The Act forbids retaliation against a person for opposing a violation or for making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in a proceeding under it.¹⁶ The breadth of that safeguard was emphasized in Miller v Department of Corrections. Here, a unanimous Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for third-party or “associational” retaliation, permitting a claim where an employer directs its reprisal not at the person who engaged in protected activity but at a close friend or relative.¹⁷ The Act’s jurisprudence continues to evolve. In 2024, the Court clarified in Doe v Alpena Public Schools that ELCRA does not furnish a vicarious-liability claim against a school for student-on-student harassment, a reminder that the statute’s boundaries remain the subject of active judicial refinement.¹⁸ 

Enforcement and Remedies under ELCRA 

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) is the state agency charged with enforcing ELCRA, and it investigates complaints of unlawful discrimination in an impartial capacity rather than as an advocate for either party. A person who alleges a violation of ELCRA may file a complaint with the MDCR within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act. Importantly, an aggrieved individual is not required to pursue this administrative route before turning to the courts. A civil action may be brought directly in a Michigan circuit court without first filing a complaint with the MDCR, and such actions are generally subject to a three-year limitations period.¹⁹ Once a matter has been filed in court, the MDCR is divested of jurisdiction to pursue the same complaint. 

The remedial architecture of ELCRA reinforces its protective purpose. A person alleging a violation of the Act may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, damages, or both²⁰. The statute defines damages to encompass the injury or loss caused by each violation, together with reasonable attorney’s fees, ensuring that the rights ELCRA guarantees are matched by meaningful mechanisms of redress. Michigan courts have construed this definition to reach not only economic loss but also the humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish flowing from a violation. The courts also permit exemplary damages in appropriate cases, although the Act does not authorize punitive damages as such.²¹ 

Conclusion: The Future of ELCRA in a Modern Era 

The progressive journey of ELCRA illustrates remarkable synchronization of legislative intent and judicial reasoning. While the origin of the Act is traced to the last quarter of the last century establishing a robust framework for equality, its continued relevance in the 21st century is strengthened through judicial interpretation and legislative amendment. 

By moving beyond narrow interpretations of sex discrimination, Michigan law has expanded protections for LGBTQ+ individuals while continuing to preserve the broader guarantees envisioned under ELCRA. Hence, the power of ELCRA lies in its ability to provide a more accessible form of justice than found in federal standards. Every employer with one or more employees falls within the purview of ELCRA. Moreover, while Michigan law has evolved alongside developments in federal civil rights jurisprudence, the state has continued to maintain distinct protection under ELCRA. 

• [1] Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.2102(1)
• [2] Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.2202(1)(a)
• [3] Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 453, Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.2101 et seq. (effective March 31, 1977).
• [4] Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.1101 et seq. (enacted 1976; formerly the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act).
• [5] See, e.g., 2009 PA 190 (pregnancy); Michigan CROWN Act, 2023 PA 45, effective June 15, 2023 (hair texture and protective hairstyles); 2023 PA 6, effective February 13, 2024 (sexual orientation, gender identity or expression).
• [6] 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e(b)
• [7] Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.2201(a)
• [8] Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.2103; see 1999 PA 202; Neal v Dep’t of Corrections, 232 Mich App 730 (1998).
• [9] 510 Mich 398 (2022) 
• [10] 2023 PA 6, effective February 13, 2024.
• [11] Michigan Dep’t of Civil Rights, MDCR Jurisdiction, https://www.michigan.gov/mdcr/enforcement/investigation/jurisdiction (last visited July 1, 2026).
• [12] 442 Mich. 368 (1993)
• [13] Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297 (2000).
• [14] Hamed v Wayne Co, 490 Mich 1 (2011); see Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.2201(a).
• [15] See McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792 (1973); Barbour v Dep’t of Social Services, 198 Mich App 183 (1993); Miller v Dep’t of Corrections, 513 Mich 125, 137 (2024).
• [16] Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.2701.
• [17] Miller v Dep’t of Corrections, 513 Mich 125 (2024).
• [18] Doe v Alpena Pub Schs, Docket No 165441 (Mich, July 29, 2024).
• [19] Michigan Dep’t of Civil Rights, MDCR Jurisdiction, supra (complaints must be filed with the Department within 180 days; a complaint may be filed in state court without first filing with the Department). The three-year limitations period for ELCRA civil actions derives from Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 600.5805, as applied in Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263; 696 NW2d 646 (2005).
• [20] Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.2801.
• [21] Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 37.2801(3).

For more practical litigation drafting tips, pleading and legal research insights, follow LawCompany.