Bill Text: MI SB0163 | 2021-2022 | 101st Legislature | Introduced


Bill Title: Labor: fair employment practices; employer taking adverse employment action against an employee who raises concern over infection control; prohibit. Creates new act.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 14-0)

Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2021-02-23 - Referred To Committee On Economic And Small Business Development [SB0163 Detail]

Download: Michigan-2021-SB0163-Introduced.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SENATE BILL NO. 163

February 23, 2021, Introduced by Senators SANTANA, CHANG, ALEXANDER, BULLOCK, GEISS, MOSS, BRINKS, POLEHANKI, MCCANN, ANANICH, BAYER, WOJNO, HERTEL and HOLLIER and referred to the Committee on Economic and Small Business Development.

A bill to prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee who engages in certain activities that address the employer's response to or management of coronavirus; and to provide remedies.

the people of the state of michigan enact:

Sec. 1. As used in this act:

(a) "Coronavirus" means coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

(b) "Damages" means any of the following:

(i) Actual injury or loss.

(ii) Reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

(iii) Punitive damages.

(c) "Employee" means an individual who performs a service for wages or other remuneration under a contract of hire, written or oral, expressed or implied.

(d) "Employer" means a person that has 1 or more employees. Employer includes an agent of the employer, this state, and a political subdivision of this state.

(e) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity.

(f) "Retaliate" means to do or threaten to do any of the following:

(i) Sanction.

(ii) Reduce pay.

(iii) Deny a promotion.

(iv) Terminate employment.

(v) Publicly demean or embarrass.

(vi) Any other form of intimidation.

(g) "Social media" means a service, platform, or website where users communicate with one another and share media, such as pictures, videos, music, and blogs, with other users free of charge.

Sec. 3. An employer shall not retaliate against an employee who criticizes or otherwise raises concerns to any of the following regarding the employer's response to or management of the coronavirus:

(a) The employer.

(b) Another employee.

(c) A department or agency of this state.

(d) A political subdivision of this state.

(e) The public, including through the use of social media.

Sec. 5. (1) An employee who alleges a violation of this act may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief or damages, or both, within 90 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation.

(2) Except as provided in chapter 64 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.6401 to 600.6475, an action may be brought under this subsection in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred, or for the county where the employer against whom the civil complaint is filed has its principal place of business or is located.

(3) An employer shall not retaliate or discriminate against an employee because the employee has done any of the following:

(a) Opposed a violation of this act.

(b) Filed a complaint under this act.

(c) Testified, assisted, or participated in a civil action brought under this act.

Sec. 7. (1) If a collective bargaining agreement or other contract that is inconsistent with this act is in effect for an employee on the effective date of this act, this act applies to that employee beginning on the date the collective bargaining agreement or other contract expires or is amended, extended, or renewed.

(2) This act does not permit the disclosure of information that would impair or diminish the rights an individual has to the continued protection of confidentiality of communications under the law.

(3) This act does not require an employer to compensate an employee for participation in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry that results from an action brought under this act.

(4) This act applies to employees in the classified state civil service to the extent that it is not inconsistent with section 5 of article XI of the state constitution of 1963.

feedback