House Bill 4264 would create the “Job Applicant Credit Privacy Act” and generally prohibit employers from using an applicant’s credit history in hiring or recruiting decisions. The bill also bars employers from asking job applicants or potential applicants about their credit history, with an exception for positions where good credit is a bona fide occupational requirement. The bill specifically identifies banks, savings institutions, credit unions, certain licensed or registered financial professionals, and casinos as categories where a credit-history inquiry or requirement may be allowed.
The bill further prohibits retaliation or discrimination against individuals who testify, assist, participate in, or oppose a proceeding involving a violation of the act. It also forbids employers from requiring applicants to waive the act’s protections as a condition of applying or receiving an offer, and declares any such waiver void. An individual injured by a violation could sue for damages, injunctive relief, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new layer of employment-law protections in Michigan by restricting when employers may consider or inquire into credit history during recruitment and hiring. It would create a private right of action for affected applicants or employees and expose employers to damages, injunctions, and fee-shifting. The bill would also carve out explicit exceptions for certain financial and gaming-related jobs, preserving credit checks where the legislature deems them job-related.
Sentiment
The available record does not include committee testimony or vote totals, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears framed as a worker privacy and fair hiring proposal, suggesting a pro-applicant policy goal. The absence of recorded votes or transcripts means the overall sentiment in the legislative process cannot be determined from the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether employers should be allowed to use credit history as a screening tool in hiring, especially for jobs involving financial responsibility or access to sensitive information. Supporters would likely emphasize privacy, fairness, and the risk that poor credit can reflect economic hardship rather than job performance, while opponents may argue that credit checks are a legitimate risk-management tool for certain positions. The bill addresses some of that concern by creating explicit exceptions for banks, credit unions, certain licensed financial occupations, and casinos, but the scope of those exceptions could still be debated.
Medical marihuana: caregivers; marihuana plants; decrease number that can be cultivated, and limit number of caregiver registrations per address. Amends secs. 3, 4 & 6 of 2008 IL 1 (MCL 333.26423 et seq.).
Relating to prohibiting governmental discriminatory practices as well as submissions and trainings that could lead to discriminatory treatment of individuals because of personal identity characteristics including an individual's race, color, ethnicity, sex, national origin or religion and the establishment of remedies and penalties for discriminatory treatment.
A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new chapter to title 15, a new chapter to title 15.1, a new section to chapter 54-10, and a new chapter to title 54 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the regulation of prohibited discriminatory practices; and to provide for a legislative management report.