Michigan House Bill HB5509

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/26
• Refer: 2/5/26

Caption

Labor: fair employment practices; agreements that prohibit employees from disclosing certain information about violations of the Elliott-Larsen civil rights act; prohibit employers from entering into unless certain conditions are met. Amends 1976 PA 453 (MCL 37.2101 - 37.2804) by adding sec. 202b.

Summary

HB 5509 would amend the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to restrict employers from using agreements that bar current or former employees from disclosing violations or suspected violations of the act, or facts related to those violations. In general, the bill prohibits confidentiality or nondisclosure provisions that would prevent an employee from speaking about civil rights violations covered by the act. The bill creates a narrow exception allowing such an agreement only if the employer provides written notice explaining the prohibition and the employee’s right to consult an attorney, and gives at least five business days to retain counsel if the employee is unrepresented. The agreement must also release the employee’s claim under the act and otherwise be legally enforceable. Any agreement made in violation of the section would be void, and the new rule would apply to agreements entered into, amended, extended, or renewed on or after the effective date.

Impact

The bill would add a new section 202b to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, limiting the enforceability of certain nondisclosure agreements in the employment context. It would affect employers, employees, and former employees by invalidating agreements that prevent disclosure of alleged civil rights violations unless the bill’s notice, attorney-consultation, and release requirements are met. The change would primarily operate through contract law and civil rights enforcement, rather than creating a new substantive discrimination claim.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a worker-protection and transparency bill aimed at preventing employers from silencing complaints about civil rights violations. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or voting pattern to indicate broader legislative sentiment. The overall thrust of the bill suggests support for employee disclosure rights and accountability in workplace civil rights matters.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the bill’s restriction on employer confidentiality agreements, which may be viewed by employers as limiting settlement flexibility or the use of nondisclosure provisions in resolving disputes. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to protect employees who report discrimination or other violations and to prevent secrecy around civil rights misconduct. The exception allowing agreements only with written notice, a five-business-day attorney review period, and a release of claims suggests an attempt to balance employee protections with the continued use of enforceable settlements.