Citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave
In a significant ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has reinstated the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws that were initially gutted by the legislature in 2018. This decision reverses the amendments made by the legislature, which had adopted and then quickly weakened the voter-initiated proposals, effectively bypassing the intent of the voters.
Background
In 2018, two citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave were presented.
The Michigan Legislature adopted these initiatives to prevent them from going to a public vote, then promptly amended them to make them more business-friendly. This “adopt and amend” strategy reduced the scope and impact of the original proposals.
For example, the minimum wage was set to increase more gradually, and the paid sick leave law was adjusted to exempt more businesses from providing benefits.
The Court’s Ruling
The Michigan Court of Claims, with Judge Douglas Shapiro presiding, ruled that this legislative maneuver violated the state constitution. Shapiro’s opinion emphasized that once the legislature adopts an initiative, it cannot amend it within the same session.
This decision reinstates the original 2018 proposals, which include raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour and extending paid sick leave benefits to many more employees than the amended laws allowed.
The court found that the legislature’s actions undermined the will of the people, who had supported the more generous terms of the original initiatives. The ruling also highlighted the constitutional principle that initiatives should be protected from legislative tampering once they are adopted.
Implications for Workers and Employers
The restoration of these laws is a major victory for worker rights groups and unions, who argue that the higher minimum wage and expanded sick leave are essential for providing fair compensation and benefits to workers.
For instance, the reinstated minimum wage law also includes provisions to eliminate the lower tipped wage by 2024, ensuring all workers receive at least $12 per hour.
The paid sick leave law now requires businesses, including those with fewer than 50 employees, to offer up to 72 hours of paid sick leave annually.
This decision is seen as a move towards economic justice, addressing issues of wage inequality and providing greater job security and benefits for low-income workers. Supporters argue that these changes are necessary to meet the rising cost of living and provide a fair wage for all workers.
Business Community’s Response
The business community, however, has expressed significant concerns about the impact of these changes. Many business leaders argue that the restored laws will place a substantial financial burden on employers, particularly small businesses already struggling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing economic challenges. They warn that the increased labor costs could lead to higher prices for consumers, reduced hiring, and even closures of small businesses.
The Michigan Restaurant & Lodging Association, for example, fears that the immediate implementation of these laws could create chaos in the hospitality industry, which is heavily reliant on the lower tipped wage model. Business groups are calling for a delay in implementing the changes to allow time for adjustment and are expected to appeal the ruling.
Next Steps
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the state’s labor policy, reaffirming the constitutional protections for voter-initiated laws. While the ruling is a clear win for worker advocates, the legal and political battles are likely to continue as business groups push back and seek ways to mitigate the impact on employers.
The state’s regulatory bodies, including the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, are now tasked with ensuring compliance with the restored laws. They will play a crucial role in determining how these laws are implemented and enforced, potentially shaping the future landscape of labor rights in Michigan.
This ruling underscores the ongoing tension between protecting worker rights and addressing the concerns of the business community, highlighting the complexities of labor law and economic policy in Michigan.
Conclusion
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to restore the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws represents a significant shift in the state’s labor policy, aimed at providing greater protections and benefits for workers.
While celebrated by worker rights groups, the ruling poses challenges for businesses, setting the stage for further legal and political debates.
As the state moves forward with implementing these changes, the balance between fair labor practices and economic viability will remain a central issue.
Read the opinion here:
Legal Counsel and Your Rights
When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.
An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.
Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.
Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.
Research us and then call us.
More Rights You Should Know
![Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2006-Sedan-ION-forfeiture.jpg)
Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION
FORFEITURE OF 2006 SATURN IONMichigan Supreme Court Ruling - July 25, 2025 The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that Detroit police can no longer seize cars through civil asset forfeiture unless they can demonstrate that the vehicle was used for drug trafficking.The...
![The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/The-6th-Amendment-What-is-it.jpg)
The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?
The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...
Other Articles
When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation?
US Supreme Court - Salinas v. TexasWhen Can Silence Be Used Against You? In the realm of criminal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals critical protections, including the right to remain silent and the right against...
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term...
Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests
Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights
Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...
What are Miranda Rights?
What are Miranda Rights?Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda warning, are the rights given to people in the United States upon arrest. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” These rights stem...
What is the Exclusionary Rule?
What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an...
Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason
Long Lake Township v. Maxon The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment ProtectionsThe recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the...
Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight
Summary of the Opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoIn Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court addressed the enduring precedent set by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which has shaped administrative law for...