Tobacco Documents Online

I 37=2'"]1 l;U,lll'llasf) L,11VS rVNNt)T.17'k:U (d) "Sex" incladcs, but is t:ot limitrd to, prrl;nancy, chihlbirlh, or a tiredic:rl contlitiuit rclatcil to prcgnancy-or childbirth that docs not inclut+s nunthrt••apeutic abortion not intended to save the life of the ntothcr. P.A.197G, No. -IS;I, 4 201, Eff: taareh JI, 19-.7. Amcnd.d by P.r\.197d, No. 153, 5 °.2; P.A.19S0, No. 202. 4 1, Imd. Elf. July 18. 1778 Amendment. Added suSd. (d). 1930 Ameadm.nt. Substitut:d "I" for "4" in subdc (a). 1, Imd. cif. 51.iy Law Rcview Commentaries - Labor law: Annual survcy of hlicliigan law 1979. Overvicw of uational nt,;,m crnp!citmcnt Jr.cnuu- De:ijaniin A. Kcrncr. .6 Wayne L.Rev. 727 (1930). nation Charles S: islr.hktnd auJ Glen N. Lcnh-iT, 63 Mich.S:D.J. B:i8 (1934). Notes of Dccizions • In gcncral I claiming to havc been thc victims of such Jiscrimiru•; Ses 2 tian. OF.Atty.C:cn.1973, No. 4783, p. 65. Vslidity rh t/r. Validity - - - - Districl court in cmp!u>mcnt disc nmrrauori ac- tion declined to abaarn from dcciiing qucst:on of h.+b:Iity of school bnards under \tichtgan's Elliott- Larsen Civd Rights Act, although the Supreme Court of Michigan had not yet passed on precise issue of wt:ether discrimination on basis of prcgnan= cy•related disabilities was ir.cluded in statutory pro- hibition against se: dtscrtntination prior to clarifying ]mendments, in light of fact that lower Michigan courts had addresseJ that isdue and fact that there may have bcen an areumcnt a~ to an alternative interpreta:ion of statute that may have bcen raised at some time and resohcd before the state supreme court did not by itself n::Fe the issue a difficult qucstion of sta!c law fronr which federal court should have abstaincd. Thnrnt•son v. Duard of Ed. of Rnmea Co:nmuaity S:heuls (D.C.1931) 519 F:Sq, p: 1373, reversed on other grounds 709 F.2d 1300. 1: In general Principal t..t of e:n~!•rycr->_m~lu)c e_m~lu)ce tc!5tionship is control. William li. Srll ".lortgagcs. Inc: v: Ohio Cas. Int. Co. (C.A.1969) 412 F.30 341. State; i:t well as eszry other cmplo)er. is prohibit- ed frcns engagir•.~ in dixnminauon against any cm- ploye[• wltetl:er ur:der the ci~il service or cLcmpt thercfrom, and legi%l: ture runains free, by virtue of th: aut' urity sected in it by the equal protection prasi+ie•n of Const. Art. I, § 2, to Ic~islate in the field of providing sudable remedies for all employces 2. Sca In action in which school diancgs' pu!ictcs rrJ practices pertaining to prcerunt te:rehers Ncre 0:,rl- Icngctl on theory Ihat thzy vrnl.urd \I:cht^an lntl Rights Act and Title VII of the Gnl Rrghts Act of 1964. fact Ihal the provisions h.ing cF.allcng_d ~rre a part of collective bargaining agrcemcnt bctwccn each district and the local teacher bargaining umt did not prevent federal district court from rcr.dcrtn; plxtnt:.^.s' an opinion and entcring order granting motion for summary judgment in part and dcnluig defendant-.' motion for summ.vy judgment iii p.irt. Thompson v. Uoard of Ed. of Rnmeo Community Schools (D.C.1981) 526 F.Supp. 1015. Emplnycr's policy or action which distingui•.hes or discriminates on basis of-pregnaney violates Michi. gan Civil Rights A:t: lil: )Jtiehic,an Civil Ri.-hts Act prohibited distincticns in emphryment pr.actices based on prc,r•.ancy or pregnancy•related condttions, and, thus, cenatn spc- cifred policics of school districts violated the Act. Id. The 1978 amendment of this scction making the excluston of any right on basis of pregnancy an act .. of aeR discrimination was net a retroactive broaakn- ing of statutory prohibitions of sur discrimination, but, rather, was a clanfication of the onginal legtsl3. tive intcrt. Dully v.-G:ncral Motors Corp. (193:) t 328 N.W,2d 34, 120 Mich.App. 165. Use of sick lease days withJrawn from si=k ba:,k ` eannot be lir•.iitcd by rc•.ttictmg or etcludmg thcir ~ us: for chddbirth or prcgnancy related diNah litics . Jiv:iumna ' without violating prohibition ag.iinst s•:i tii>n by emptoycrs contained in § dL.21AI et scy Op Auy.Gen. 1979, No. 3•175, p. 136. 37.2202. Employer; prohibited acts Sec. 202. (1) An employer shall not: (a) Fail or refuse to hire, or recruit, or diachor(;e, or otherwise iliscrituinatc at;ain:a an . . - - - - • -. . _ mdiv'' 'tl wtth respeet to employment, contpensJtrun, or a tenn, cundawn, or lt'••~~I!^btt uf ~,.. UUA11'11.1;L) LA1V3 ANI` emplny'tneut; because of r tnitrital status. , (li) (.itntl, scl;m);atc, or c+hieh dtq.rices ur tend', tu ty, or otherwise adversel rch ion, race, color, nat;ol (e)_Sct,tri;:ltc, r•lassify, ' svith-re~peet to a t( plan orsstcrn. (?) This section s) tation of a bona ftde retir• purposes of this section. LI) This section shall nut spouae, or child. P.:1.197G; No. 153, § zo:, Er~ 22. 1978 Amendment. Rewrote by inL'rlmi; ' "or othcrwl:e r!- pcrson" follo..iiig ".ir cl.iss.: •.N,Ih ri•.pect to a terin• cond cmplo, vmen1, including a bcncl'.I %:r employce for p:irfh-iscs of bcr.efn plan or an cmplalee wc defined in section 3 of Title I of Ernployment deciSion-makmg tutions. John R. Runyan, 26 (1980). - Employment discri:om2tion wnght. 13 U.btich.l.LRCf. 33 Jury trial in contempt prxcct Dou Sic?,cl, 13 Wayne L.Rcv: l.abor law: Annual survey of Dcnjamin A. Kerner, ?5 11•jyn. Labor law and uncm, lo) mcn nu3l sur.ey of MichiVan law IT. an, 30 Wayne L.Rev. 737 (198• In general 2 Age, discrimination 3.1 Dack pay 6 Durden of proof 10 Company union S DamnCes 14 l)i.cuvery 9.5 Uiscriminatiun 3 Disparate treatment, discrimins F.vidcnce It EiSmur.niun nf tiitnc..es 10.! F'ahauatiun of rcmedics 8.7 fcdcral prcemptiun 2.1 Fcdcrnl remcdies 9 :U2~684657