Last week’s election brought a wave of Democratic victories across Michigan and the nation, raising questions about what the results could mean for Michigan employers. The last significant Democratic wave in Michigan came in 2022, although relatively little of the party’s broader legislative agenda was enacted over the following two years. With renewed political momentum and a stronger mandate from voters, Democratic lawmakers may now push aggressively to revisit previously stalled legislation while advancing new policy priorities that could have significant implications for employers.
In 2023 the Michigan House passed 17 bills to address various issues from wage theft, independent contractor status, non-payment of wages, whistleblower violations, and sharing of compensation with other employees. These bills will likely see the light of day again with even more new concerns.
One of the first legislative priorities will likely be pay transparency. In 2019, Governor Whitmer signed Executive Directive 2019-10, Equal Pay for Equal Work, which established pay transparency requirements for State of Michigan employment and prohibited state agencies from asking job applicants about their salary history.
In 2023, the Michigan House passed pay transparency legislation, but concerns about the bill’s language and potential criminal penalties prevented it from advancing further. With Democrats gaining political momentum, lawmakers may revisit the issue and introduce legislation requiring employers to include salary ranges and benefits information in job postings, along with a prohibition on requesting applicants’ salary histories.
A key question for employers will be how the law is enforced, particularly whether it allows individuals to file private lawsuits. Washington state offers an example of the potential implications. Court rulings there have raised concerns about lawsuits brought by individuals who apply for positions without a genuine interest in employment but instead seek to identify technical violations in job postings. If Michigan adopts similar provisions, employers could face increased litigation exposure for failing to include required compensation information, even when no actual employment opportunity was sought.
Another bill impacting wage theft and pay secrecy will also likely be introduced and could pass this time around. The pay secrecy law will require employers to provide employees comparable pay data when requested by an employee. The previous bill defined “similarly situated employees” as “those within the same job classification as the employee requesting the information or whose duties are comparable in skill, effort, responsibility, working conditions, and training to those of the requesting employee.” There will likely be court cases to determine the scope of these requests.
However, it also will indirectly require employers to review their compensation structure especially if jobs do not have a pay rate assigned. In this situation it may force employers to create or formalize their compensation administration in anticipation of correctly responding to requests for this data. Failure to comply with a request could expose an employer to various penalties, including severe ones, depending on how the law is written.
Employers can expect a paid family leave law. Previously introduced during the last Blue Wave in 2023, the bill required all employers to facilitate a new 12–15-week paid family leave program, which was estimated to cost employers $16-$17.2 billion dollars per year, according to the Senate’s nonpartisan Fiscal Agency. The question is how it would be paid for, whether like California and Minnesota through a public fund and a tax on both employer and/or employee, or by the employer directly. Small employers could face the greatest financial and administrative burden under such a program, particularly if they are required to cover a significant portion of the costs.
With the rise of AI, it is very likely an AI regulatory bill will be introduced. At minimum, the bill will likely require employer notice to applicants and employees of AI being used in any employment process. What notice entails is yet to be seen.
It could also rise to the level of the recently passed No Robo Bosses law in California. That law prevents businesses around in California from exclusively using “automated decision-making systems” in matters of employee discipline and termination. It also restricts their capacity to use AI as a principal tool in such decisions. Employers that rely “primarily” on AI output to make termination or disciplinary decisions must now have a human reviewer corroborate those decisions using additional information, such as managerial evaluations, peer reviews, and personnel files. Additionally, affected employees must be provided with written notice that AI was “primarily used” in their termination or disciplinary decision, a description of the employe data used by the system, and a human point of contact who can further explain the decision.
Other proposed laws that could be introduced include increasing the corporate tax rate, an updated cybersecurity law (data privacy and data breaches), a biometric law similar to Illinois (with possibly private cause of actions), a noncompete prohibition law, required harassment training of all managers similar to requirements in California, Connecticut, and Illinois, a state EEO-1 reporting requirement, anti-stat and play law (prohibit certain contracts that required a worker to repay an employer when the employment relationship or work ended), a workers’ compensation overhaul, increased protections for whistleblowers, among other initiatives.
As more information becomes available, ASE will report on these proposed laws.
Source: The State News 10/29/26, SBAM, Miller Johnson 4/19/23