Michigan House Bill HB4625

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/10/25

Caption

Worker's compensation: other; certain references in the worker's compensation act; make gender neutral. Amends secs. 118, 335 & 353 of 1969 PA 317 (MCL 418.118 et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25

Summary

House Bill 4625 amends the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act to replace gendered and outdated references with gender-neutral language. The bill revises sections dealing with household domestic servants, death benefits for dependents, and dependency determinations, changing terms such as “wife” to “spouse,” “he or she” to “the individual,” and similar wording throughout the cited provisions. It also updates references to children, siblings, and other family relationships to use neutral terminology. Substantively, the bill does not appear to change the underlying eligibility rules, benefit formulas, or compensation timelines in the cited sections. Instead, it modernizes statutory language in the worker’s compensation system while preserving the existing structure for domestic servant coverage, dependent benefits after a worker’s death, and reductions or adjustments in weekly payments based on dependency status. The bill is tied to a separate constitutional resolution, meaning it would not take effect unless the linked joint resolution becomes part of the state constitution. The bill’s impact on state law is limited to the wording of sections 118, 335, and 353 of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act. It would affect how the statute is read and applied by replacing gender-specific terms with gender-neutral ones, but it does not expand or contract benefits on its face. The affected parties are workers, dependents, employers, and workers’ compensation administrators who rely on these provisions for determining coverage and benefit eligibility. General sentiment around the bill appears neutral to favorable, based on its caption and the absence of recorded opposition, committee debate, or vote history in the provided materials. The bill is framed as a technical and modernizing cleanup measure rather than a controversial policy change. Because no transcripts or votes are included, there is no evidence of significant public disagreement in the available record. The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is procedural rather than substantive: the bill is tied to House Joint Resolution F or Senate Joint Resolution ____ and therefore depends on a constitutional change before taking effect. That tie-bar suggests lawmakers wanted the statutory language update to move in tandem with a broader constitutional amendment process. No other specific disputes are identified in the materials provided.

Impact

HB4625 would amend the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act by replacing gendered references with gender-neutral terminology in provisions governing household domestic servants, death benefits for dependents, and dependency calculations. The bill does not change the basic benefit rules or eligibility standards in those sections, but it would update the statutory language used by employers, workers, dependents, and workers’ compensation officials. Its effective date is contingent on a related constitutional resolution, so the statutory changes would not take effect unless that tie-bar condition is satisfied.

Sentiment

The available materials suggest a generally neutral-to-supportive sentiment. The bill is presented as a technical cleanup measure to make the worker’s compensation statute gender neutral, and there are no committee transcripts, recorded votes, or other evidence of organized opposition in the provided record. The absence of debate or voting history makes it difficult to identify any substantial controversy beyond the bill’s procedural tie to a constitutional resolution.

Contention

The only notable contention apparent from the text is the bill’s tie-bar to House Joint Resolution F or Senate Joint Resolution ____; this means the statutory amendments are contingent on a separate constitutional change. That procedural dependency may be the main issue for lawmakers, since the bill itself is otherwise a non-substantive language modernization. No specific policy objections, stakeholder disputes, or amendments are reflected in the provided materials.