Michigan Un-Bans the Box

By Michael Klazema on 7/29/2015

The new law protects any person or entity engaging in or intending to engage in a commercial activity, enterprise, or business in the state, except for local governmental bodies or educational institutions. This includes private employers.

As a result of the law, local governmental agencies are prohibited from adopting, enforcing, or administering an ordinance, local policy, or local resolution regulating information an employer or potential employer must request, require, or exclude on an application for employment from an employee or a potential employee. The law does not prohibit an ordinance, local policy, or local resolution requiring a criminal background check for an employee or potential employee in connection with the receipt of a license or permit from a local governmental body or in connection with a voluntary agreement between the employee and the local government.

The state has a law that prohibits private employers from inquiring about misdemeanor arrests, detentions, or dispositions where a conviction did not result in a conviction. (Michigan Complied Laws § 37.2205a). That law remains intact. Additionally, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission considers any ban on hiring based strictly on criminal history to be discriminatory, and discourages employers from asking about criminal history on job applications. Applicable federal law will still prevail over this state law. Therefore, to the extent that federal anti-discrimination laws would prohibit consideration of criminal history, those federal laws remain in effect in Michigan.

Detroit has an ordinance that restricts public contractors working for the city from inquiring about convictions on job applications and prohibits background checks on employees and prospective employees before an interview or before an offer of employment is made (Detroit Municipal Code §§ 13-1-11,12,13). Detroit’s law probably remains in effect due to §15 of the state law which states that a local government can adopt, enforce, or administer an ordinance, local policy, or local resolution that involves a voluntary agreement between an employer and the local governmental body for services provided directly to the local government body. Therefore, a provision in a voluntary agreement with a governmental body may restrict public contractors from conducting background checks before an interview or before an offer of employment is made.

Mississippi is the only other state to pass an un-ban the box law (Senate Bill 2689 (2014)). It went into effect July 1, 2014. Michigan’s law was effective the date it passed on June 30, 2015.

If you have any questions about this new law or any other ban-the-box law, please contact your GIS client relations representative.

What This Means to You:

  • Michigan’s Local Government Labor Regulatory Limitation Act allows employers in the state to ask about criminal history on job applications (except for misdemeanor arrests, detentions, or dispositions that did not result in a conviction).
  • Michigan’s Local Government Labor Regulatory Limitation Act probably does not override Detroit’s restrictions on public contractors’ ability to inquire about convictions and obtain background checks prior to the interview or before an offer of employment is made.
  • Determine if you have any employees in Michigan and in Detroit.
  • If you do, review your employment application and the timing of your background checks with your lawyer to ensure compliance with Michigan’s state laws.

House Bill 4052 is available here for review:

For more details on the FCRA, EEOC Guidance, various state laws and much more, please visit’s compliance resources and compliance updates archives.

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.