Michigan’s PMLA and Minimum Wage Law Remain in Effect (For Now) After the Michigan Supreme Court Punted on the Constitutionality of Their Passage
On Dec. 18, 2019, the Michigan Supreme Court decided not to issue an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of the Paid Medical Leave Act’s and minimum wage law’s passage in early December 2018 (2018 PA 368 & 369). As a result, both laws remain in effect for now. In a 4-3 decision, the Court issued an order stating that it was denying the legislatures’ requests for an advisory opinion on the “adopt and amend” strategy used to pass both laws as it was not an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion. Although the Court’s 48-page order contained two concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions, the merits were not addressed. As the laws remain in effect for the time being, employers should make sure that they are in compliance, but should also pay close attention to developments because involvement from the Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and worker advocacy groups is expected.
Employers should expect one of the two following developments (and possibly even both) to occur in the coming weeks and months: (1) Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel issuing an Attorney General Opinion finding the “adopt and amend” strategy unconstitutional; and/or (2) worker advocacy groups, like MI Time to Care, announcing that they are initiating ballot petitioning drives to obtain the signatures necessary to place another set of ballot initiatives on the 2020 ballot. The former development is the one that employers should be the most concerned about.
If AG Nessel issues an AG Opinion finding the “adopt and amend” strategy unconstitutional, then the state agencies would be directed to enforce the original 2018 ballot initiative adopted language. (i.e., a $12 minimum wage by 2022 and the Earned Sick Time Act that, among other things, contained a 72-hour paid leave requirement for employers with 50 or more employees). This scenario will likely lead to a number of lawsuits by employers seeking to enjoin the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (Governor Whitmer reorganized the state agencies earlier this year by shifting, among other things, wage and hour law compliance to the newly-organized LEO) from enforcing the ESTA and more employee-friendly version of the minimum wage law. Employers' chances of obtaining a preliminary injunction (i.e., maintain the status quo during the lawsuit) are likely aided by the fact that the PMLA and current minimum wage laws have been in effect for almost 10 months. However, we can only speculate on what a court would do at this time.
Worker advocacy groups are aligned with Democrats and thus they likely will coordinate their plans with AG Nessel since she is also a Democrat. If the worker advocacy groups pursue 2020 ballot initiative petitions, then there is a chance that AG Nessel will not issue an AG Opinion. Regardless, the 2020 ballot initiative petitions will likely contain the same 2018 initiative language. Worker advocacy groups currently have until May 27, 2020, to file their ballot initiative petitions.
At this point in time employers can continue enforcing PMLA-compliant paid leave policies and are strongly advised to keep an eye out for what AG Nessel and worker advocacy groups decide to do.
Should you have any questions concerning labor or employment law matters, please contact Stephen R. Gee at email@example.com or any other member of Clark Hill’s labor and employment business unit team.
FAQs: Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccines and the Automotive & Manufacturing Industries
Join us for a presentation where we will share the considerations, implications, and answer your frequently asked questions surrounding the implementation of mandatory COVID-19 vaccines.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Finds Objection to Affidavit of Service Requirement for a Perfected Mechanics’ Lien Was Not Waived Even if First Raised 5 Years Later
Mechanic’s lien claims, unlike other actions, are created by statute and, as a result, Pennsylvania courts require strict compliance with the statutory requirements to perfect the lien or risk the dismissal of the claim.
The Department of Education Clarifies That Title IX Applies to Cases Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has issued an interpretation of Title IX, emphasizing that the law prohibits discrimination based upon (1) sexual orientation; and (2) gender identity.