Exercise of rights under act; interference, restraint, or denial prohibited; retaliatory personnel action or discrimination prohibited; absence control policy leading to or resulting in retaliatory personnel action prohibited; person mistakenly alleging violation.
MCL 408.966
in effect408.966. Exercise of rights under act; interference, restraint, or denial prohibited; retaliatory personnel action or discrimination prohibited; absence control policy leading to or resulting in retaliatory personnel action prohibited; person mistakenly alleging violation.
Sec. 6.
(1) An employer or any other person shall not interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right protected under this act.
(2) An employer shall not take retaliatory personnel action or discriminate against an employee because the employee has exercised a right protected under this act. Rights protected by this act include, but are not limited to, the right to use earned sick time under this act, the right to file a complaint or inform any person about any employer's alleged violation of this act, the right to cooperate with the department in the department's investigations of alleged violations of this act, and the right to inform any person of the person's rights under this act.
(3) An employer's absence control policy must not treat earned sick time taken under this act as an absence that may lead to or result in retaliatory personnel action.
(4) The protections in this section apply to any person that mistakenly but in good faith alleges a violation of this section.
(5) An employer may take adverse personnel action against an employee if the employee uses earned sick time for a purpose other than a purpose described in section 4, or violates the notice requirements under this act.
2018, Act 338, Eff. Mar. 29, 2019; Repealed 2018, Act 369, Eff. Mar. 29, 2019; 2018, Act 338, Eff. Feb. 21, 2025; Am. 2025, Act 2, Imd. Eff. Feb. 21, 2025
[Compiler] The repealed section pertained to the exercise of rights and the prohibition of retaliatory personnel action or discrimination.
[Compiler] See Mothering Justice v Attorney General, case no. 165325, July 31, 2024. The Michigan Supreme Court held that 2018 PA 369 was unconstitutional and, therefore void and revived the original initiative as enacted by the Legislature on September 5, 2018, effective February 21, 2025.
Source: Michigan Legislature (legislature.mi.gov)URL: https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-408-966Fetched: 10/20/2026