A recent decision from West Michigan’s federal district court may have shed light on a minor mystery that’s puzzled a number of faith-based nonprofits and businesses in Michigan over the years: with no explicit protections for them in Michigan’s civil rights law,* why have they never been prosecuted for religious discrimination under state law?

The decision in question comes from a case where a Christian healthcare provider made exactly this point: that because Michigan civil rights law (unlike federal civil rights law) does not contain any explicit statutory protection for religious employers, the healthcare provider’s faith-based actions and decisions—such as hiring employees on the basis of their Christian faith—violated state law and therefore placed the healthcare provider under serious risk of enforcement.

On March 29 the judge ruled against the healthcare provider because she found they lacked standing to sue, since the judge did not believe there was a credible threat of prosecution from the state.  But this conclusion by the judge was based in part on her finding that Michigan civil rights law does contain some (implicit) protections for religious employers.  In particular, the judge held that Michigan civil rights law “recognize[s] religious freedoms like those asserted by Plaintiff herein.”

Perhaps just as significant is the fact that shortly after the judge’s ruling was released Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel—the top law enforcement officer in Michigan—applauded the judge’s decision in a press release.  The Attorney General stated that she was “pleased that [the judge] recognized that [Michigan law] already provide[s] for the consideration of religious freedoms when assessing discrimination claims.”

Taken together, the new court ruling and the Attorney General’s statement should give religious employers in Michigan some comfort that the state’s civil rights laws are not as inhospitable as some have feared.  But regardless of this recent ruling, faith-based employers should have confidence in the robust religious liberty protections provided under federal law as well as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The case is Christian Healthcare Centers v. Nessel, No. 22-cv-787 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2023).  If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact the author Brett Swearingen or another employment attorney at Miller Johnson.

* Michigan law does contain explicit protections for religious schools that “limit[] admission or give[] preference to an applicant of the same religion.”  MCL 37.2403.  In addition, Michigan law includes a rarely-used provision that allows an employer to take religion (or another protected category) into account in its employment decisions if it can show that religion (or the other protected category) is a “bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise.”  MCL 37.2208.