Opinion ID: 1711125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Title VII and ADEA Distinguished From the Michigan Civil Rights Act

Text: Even though we often look to title VII precedent in interpreting our own civil rights statute, [16] we decline to do so when the Michigan statute provides greater protection to victims of discriminatory actions than title VII provides. [17] Title VII requires claimants to exhaust administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before pursuing judicial relief. [18] Likewise, the ADEA requires an aggrieved individual to seek relief first with the EEOC. [19] In sharp contrast, the Michigan Constitution expressly prohibits an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement for civil rights claims. [20] In addition, the Legislature has underscored this policy by also expressly prohibiting an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement. [21] Even if federal precedent had answered the issue at hand with respect to ordinary individually negotiated employment contracts, and I have found above that it has not, I would find that the Michigan constitutional and statutory enforcement scheme for civil rights is significantly different from the statutory enforcement scheme for federal discrimination statutes with respect to an aggrieved individual's access to judicial remedies. Accordingly, I would decline to rely on federal precedent.