Following a Michigan Court of Claims decision involving a discrimination lawsuit filed against the Michigan Department of Civil Rights,\u00a0Attorney General Dana\u00a0Nessel\u00a0is\u00a0commending the\u00a0Court\u2019s decision on\u00a0\u201cgender\u00a0identity\u201d\u00a0but\u00a0vows to appeal\u00a0its ruling as it relates to\u00a0\u201csexual\u00a0orientation\u201d and the terms\u2019 meanings under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs in\u00a0the lawsuit \u2013\u00a0Rouch\u00a0World LLC et al v Michigan Department of Civil Rights et al<\/i>\u00a0\u2013\u00a0are businesses that, based on religious grounds, denied services to\u00a0customers who were either a same-sex couple or an individual who was transitioning their gender identity.<\/p>\n
In 2018, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (MCRC) adopted an interpretive statement that \u201csex\u201d as defined by ELCRA included protections for individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This determination by the MCRC allowed the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) to begin processing complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.<\/p>\n
Complaints about the plaintiff businesses were filed in 2019 with the MDCR, which began its investigation. In early 2020, plaintiffs filed suit, asking the Court to rule that MDCR has no jurisdiction to investigate complaints based on sexual orientation or gender identity and that the MCRC had no authority to issue the 2018 interpretive statement that sexual orientation and gender Identity were covered under ELCRA.<\/p>\n
Judge Christopher Murray, in his opinion\u00a0issued\u00a0Monday,\u00a0sided with the\u00a0MCRC\u2019s\u00a0interpretive statement that\u00a0ELCRA\u00a0provides\u00a0protections for \u201cgender identity.\u201d However, the Court indicated ELCRA does not prohibit discrimination against a person because of an individual\u2019s \u201csexual orientation,\u201d\u00a0based on a 1993 Court of Appeals ruling in\u00a0Barbour v Department of Social Services<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Attorney General\u00a0Nessel\u00a0has indicated she will appeal that ruling on behalf of the Department of Civil Rights.<\/p>\n
\u201cI respectfully disagree with the Michigan Court of Claims on its ruling in this case as it relates to sexual orientation,\u201d\u00a0Nessel\u00a0said. \u201cMichigan courts have held that federal precedent is highly persuasive when determining the contours of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and federal courts across the country \u2013 including the U.S. Supreme Court in\u00a0Bostock v Clayton Co<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 have held that discrimination on the basis of\u00a0sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.\u00a0We intend to\u00a0submit\u00a0that all Michigan residents are entitled to protection under the law \u2013 regardless of their gender identity\u00a0or sexual orientation \u2013 in our appeal to this decision.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Michigan Department of Civil Rights is committed to continuing the work we are mandated to do,\u201d said James E. White, the MDCR\u2019s director. \u201cWe stand ready to investigate and resolve all complaints of discrimination filed with us, under the authority of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and other state and federal civil rights laws.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Following a Michigan Court of Claims decision involving a discrimination lawsuit filed against the Michigan Department of Civil…\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2924,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n