Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
PAY EQUITY
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 5618 as reported from committee
Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Samantha Steckloff http://www.legislature.mi.gov
House Bill 5619 as reported from committee
Sponsor: Rep. Christine Morse
House Bill 5620 as reported House Bill 5624 as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Erin Byrnes Sponsor: Rep. Jennifer A. Conlin
House Bill 5621 as reported House Bill 5625 as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Kristian C. Grant Sponsor: Rep. Helena Scott
House Bill 5622 as reported House Bill 5626 as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Veronica A. Paiz Sponsor: Rep. Stephanie A. Young
House Bill 5623 as reported House Bill 5627 as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Betsy Coffia Sponsor: Rep. Julie Brixie
Committee: Labor
Complete to 12-13-24
SUMMARY:
Together, House Bills 5618 to 5627 would establish several measures related to pay equity.
The bills would add protections for employee pay transparency, require employers to publish
job descriptions for open positions, provide for anonymous online and phone reporting of
employment discrimination, create a fair paycheck workplace certificate program, and prohibit
wage discrimination based on specified characteristics and attributes.
House Bill 5618 would amend 1978 PA 390, known as the wages and fringe benefits act, to
add provisions regarding employee wage disclosure.
Currently, an employer cannot explicitly require an employee to refrain from disclosing their
wages as a condition of their employment, require an employee to sign a document denying
them the right to disclose their wages, or discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise
discriminate against for job advancement an employee who does so.
Under the wages and fringe benefits act, employer means an individual, sole
proprietorship, partnership, association, or corporation, public or private; the state or a
state agency; a city, county, village, township, school district, or intermediate school
district; an institution of higher education; or an individual acting directly or indirectly
in the interest of an employer who employs one or more individuals. (Except as
specifically provided in a franchise agreement between a franchisee and franchisor, the
franchisee is considered the sole employer of workers for whom the franchisee
provides a benefit plan or pays wages.)
The bill would further prohibit employers from implementing or engaging in a practice that
discourages wage disclosure, such as including a statement in a written policy that discourages
an employee from disclosing their wages.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 10
 Additionally, employers would be prohibited from asking or otherwise seeking information
about a prospective employee’s past wages and benefits, credit score, or credit history.
MCL 408.483a
House Bill 5619 would add a new section to the wages and fringe benefits act to require
employers to create and disseminate job descriptions for open positions. The bill would go into
effect 90 days after it is enacted.
For each position, employers would be required to create and maintain a job description that
includes all of the following:
• A list of the position’s essential duties and responsibilities.
• A description of the skills, training, and effort required to perform the job.
• The working conditions and schedule under which the job is performed.
• Salary information, including any pay scales.
Employers would have to make an applicable job description available to an applicant during
the recruitment, hiring, and promotion processes and to any employee who requests it.
Employers could not apply a revised job description to a current employee until the employee
has had an opportunity to review and initial it.
Proposed MCL 408.479a
House Bill 5620 would amend the wages and fringe benefits act to prescribe penalties for a
violation of the job description requirements proposed by House Bill 5619. The penalties
would apply in addition to other applicable sanctions and remedies under the act.
For a first violation, the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO)
would have to issue a notice to the employer requiring the employer to correct the violation
within 14 days of receiving the notice. 1 If the employer fails to correct the violation, they would
be subject to a civil fine of up to $500.
For a second violation, the employer would be subject to a fine of up to $5,000. A third
violation would result in a fine of up to $15,000, and subsequent violations would result in a
fine of up to $25,000.
If an individual is aggrieved by a violation of the job description requirements, they could bring
an action to recover actual damages. A prevailing plaintiff would be awarded the greater of
actual damages or $10,000, in addition to actual costs and attorney fees.
The bill cannot take effect unless HB 5619 is also enacted.
MCL 408.488
1
Executive Reorganization Order No. 2019-3 transferred the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory
Affairs’ responsibilities under 1978 PA 390 to LEO. See: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-
125-1998.pdf.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 5618 to 5627 as reported Page 2 of 10
 House Bill 5621 would amend the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to require the Michigan
Department of Civil Rights to establish online and telephone platforms to receive reports of
violations and to require the department to protect the anonymity of an individual involved in
an investigation to the greatest extent possible.
Generally speaking, the act prohibits discriminatory practices, policies, and customs based on
religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,
height, weight, familial status [having children], or marital status. These are often called
“protected categories” with reference to the act. The act is enforced by private lawsuits and by
the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (MCRC), which through the Michigan Department of
Civil Rights investigates and acts on discrimination complaints.
Under the bill, the Department of Civil Rights would have to maintain a public website that
includes information about rights under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and a link to an
easy-to-use electronic form for reporting a violation. The website would have to prominently
display a phone number for a telephone line to be maintained by the Department of Civil Rights
exclusively for receiving reports of violations. Both the electronic form and phone line would
have to allow for anonymous reporting.
Additionally, when conducting an employment discrimination investigation, the Department
of Civil Rights would have to follow procedures to ensure that the identity of an individual
who has alleged a violation or has assisted or participated in an investigation remains
anonymous to the greatest extent reasonably possible.
MCL 37.2602
House Bill 5623 would amend the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to require the Michigan
Department of Civil Rights to establish online and telephone platforms to receive reports of
violations, require the department to protect the anonymity of an individual involved in an
investigation to the greatest extent possible, and to require certain employers to notify their
employees of applicable wage discrimination laws and of avenues to report a violation. The
bill would take effect 90 days after it is enacted.
Under the bill, the Department of Civil Rights would have to maintain a public website that
includes information about rights under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and a link to an
easy-to-use electronic form for reporting a violation. The website would have to prominently
display a phone number for a telephone line to be maintained by the Department of Civil Rights
exclusively for receiving reports of violations. Both the electronic form and phone line would
have to allow for anonymous reporting.
When conducting an employment discrimination investigation, the Department of Civil Rights
would have to follow procedures to ensure that the identity of an individual who has alleged a
violation or has assisted or participated in an investigation remains anonymous to the greatest
extent reasonably possible.
If an employer employs at least 50 individuals at a single site in Michigan at any time during
a calendar year, they would have notify employees of the following:
• That it is illegal under federal law to pay employees different wages for the same work
because of an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic
information, or disability.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 5618 to 5627 as reported Page 3 of 10
 • That it is illegal under state law to pay employees different wages for the same work
because of an employee’s religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, or marital status.
• That an employee who believes their employer has violated the law requiring equal pay
may contact the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.
• As described above, the telephone number to report a violation of the act and the
address of the website to access the reporting form.
The Department of Civil Rights would have to approve the form of the notice and could require
additional information regarding employees’ rights under state law.
The information would also have to be posted at the work site in a conspicuous location where
employees could conveniently read it.
An employer who violates these provisions could be liable for a civil fine of up to $100.
MCL 37.2602 (amended); MCL 37.2202b (proposed)
House Bill 5625 would create a new act, the “Fair Paycheck Workplace Certificate Act,” that
would allow employers of any size to apply for and receive a “fair paycheck workplace
certificate” if they compensate employees with protected attributes or characteristics at
substantially the same rate as their other employees.
Protected attribute or characteristic would mean the religion, race, color, national
origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight,
familial status of an individual, or any other attribute or characteristic that is protected
under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
Certificate application and approval
To obtain the certificate, an employer would have to submit a signed application to the director
of LEO or their designee. The employer would also have to submit an application fee, as set
by the LEO director or designee. 2
An application would have to include the following information, in addition to any other
information determined to be necessary by the LEO director or designee:
• The employer’s name and address.
• The total number of employees.
• The known protected attributes or characteristics of each employee.
• Payroll records showing the gross compensation paid to each employee during the
immediately preceding calendar year. 3
(Information provided for the purpose of obtaining a certificate would be exempt from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.)
2
The application fee could not be more than the amount determined to be necessary to administer the act.
3
An employee’s compensation would include any commissions, bonuses, or tips, but not the value of any fringe
benefits.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 5618 to 5627 as reported Page 4 of 10
 If the employer pays the application fee and includes all the required information, they would
receive a fair paycheck workplace certificate if the LEO director or designee determines based
on that information that there is a less than 5% difference between the average gross
compensation paid to employees with different protected attributes or characteristics. The LEO
director or designee would have to either issue the certificate or provide a rejection notice
explaining the reason for the rejection within 15 days after receiving a completed application
and fee.
An initial certificate would expire after six months. An employer could renew a certificate by
submitting the application fee and a signed application to the LEO director or designee, and
subsequent certificates would be valid for one year.
Database
The LEO director or designee would have to establish and maintain a free, public, and online
database of employers that have been issued a certificate that includes each employer’s name
and address, in addition to whether the certificate is current or expired.
Penalties
An employer would be prohibited from claiming to possess a fair paycheck workplace
certificate or otherwise indicate that they possess such a certificate if they do not have one or
if their certificate has expired. An employer who violates this provision would be subject to a
civil fine of up to $1,000, and the attorney general or appropriate county prosecutor could bring
an action to collect the fine. Fines would be deposited in the general fund.
Administration
The LEO director or their designee would have to promulgate rules to implement the act in
accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, which would have to include the manner
in which an application must be submitted and the amount of the application fee. Any
determinations or appeals under the act would have to be made in accordance with the
Administrative Procedures Act.
House Bill 5622 would amend the Management and Budget Act to require state construction
and procurement contracts to be awarded to employers that have received a fair paycheck
workplace certificate, as proposed by House Bill 5625. The bill cannot take effect unless House
Bill 5625 is also enacted.
The Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB) and any state agency, as
applicable would be prohibited from awarding a contract for the construction, repair,
remodeling, or demolition of facilities or a state procurement contract to an employer without
a fair paycheck workplace certificate.
(The bill would also remove a reference to 1945 PA 302, known as the emergency powers of
the governor act, which was struck down by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2020 as an
unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.)
MCL 18.1241 and 18.1261
House Fiscal Agency HBs 5618 to 5627 as reported Page 5 of 10
 House Bill 5624 would add a new section to the wages and fringe benefits act to prohibit wage
discrimination based on several specified attributes and characteristics, such as race and sex,
and to repeal the Improved Workforce Opportunity Act’s prohibition on sex-based wage
discrimination.
Under the bill, employers would generally be prohibited from paying an employee at a different
wage rate than is paid to another employee because of a protected attribute or characteristic
for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility and are performed
under similar working conditions. An employer could not reduce employee pay rates to comply
with these provisions.
Protected attribute or characteristic would mean the religion, race, color, national
origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight,
marital status of an individual, or any other attribute or characteristic that is protected
under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
Employers could set wages in accordance with a seniority system, a merit system, or other
system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or based on a factor other
than a protected attribute or characteristic.
Additionally, the bill would repeal section 13 of the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage
Act, which currently prohibits sex-based wage discrimination for equal work. 4
MCL 408.483b (proposed); MCL 408.943 (repealed)
House Bill 5626 would amend the Michigan Penal Code to expand the prohibition against
wage discrimination based on sex to include other protected attributes or characteristics.
Currently, employers are prohibited from discriminating in the payment of wages between
sexes for individuals who are similarly employed, and an employer who violates this
prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Differences in wage rates based on other factors do
not violate this provision.)
House Bill 5626 would additionally prohibit wage discrimination between individuals of