House Bill 6050 would amend Michigan’s governmental immunity law to add a new exception for certain criminal sexual conduct committed by employees or agents of public universities, colleges, and school districts. Under the bill, those public entities would not be immune from tort liability if the conduct occurred during employment or service and the institution was negligent in hiring, supervision, or training, or had actual or constructive knowledge of the conduct and failed to report it to law enforcement.
The bill also specifies a narrower basis for liability where the institution knew, or should have known, of a prior act or propensity for criminal sexual conduct and failed to act or intervene to prevent a later incident. It clarifies that plaintiffs may still pursue other available causes of action, that a criminal conviction is not required for a civil claim under this section, and that the new provision applies retroactively to certain actions commenced under the tolling statute referenced in the bill.
HB6050 would amend the Governmental Tort Liability Act, specifically MCL 691.1407, by creating a new section 7d that limits immunity for public universities, colleges, and school districts in cases involving criminal sexual conduct by employees or agents. It would expose those institutions to potential civil liability based on negligent hiring, supervision, training, failure to report, or failure to intervene after knowledge of prior misconduct or propensity. The bill also preserves existing immunity rules for other governmental actors and functions, while leaving intact other possible claims against individuals or third parties.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so the bill’s sentiment can only be inferred from its text. The measure appears strongly protective of victims and plaintiffs, reflecting a policy choice to narrow governmental immunity in sexual misconduct cases involving educational institutions. At the same time, the bill preserves immunity in most other contexts, suggesting a targeted rather than broad rollback of governmental protections.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of governmental immunity and whether public universities, colleges, and school districts should face expanded civil exposure for employee misconduct. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability, institutional responsibility, and the need to report and prevent abuse; opponents may argue that the bill increases litigation risk, imposes retroactive liability, and could create uncertainty for public institutions. Another possible issue is the bill’s retroactive application and its reliance on actual or constructive knowledge standards, which can be fact-intensive and disputed in court.