A Michigan Supreme Court case heard this week is testing the limits of state civil rights law.
It involves a former social work professor at Calvin University whose contract wasn’t renewed after he officiated a same-sex wedding for a colleague. His lawyers argued that amounted to sex-based discrimination by association.
The question before the court is whether the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act applies in that case. The law bans discrimination “based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, familial status, marital status, or source of income.”
It follows a similar sentence structure as the federal Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination “because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
Plaintiff Joseph Kuilema’s lawyers argue, by getting rid of the word “individual’s” in the Michigan law, state lawmakers meant for the law to apply in a broader context.
“Although ELCRA doesn't use the word ‘associational,’ it doesn't need to because it's broadly written, intended to apply to associational retaliation,” attorney Charissa Huang said to the justices Thursday.
Lawyer Steve van Stempvoort, representing Calvin University, disagreed.
“The most natural reading of the statute is these possessives are redundant and ... ELCRA just kind of made it more efficient. It didn't drastically expand the scope,” van Stempvoort said.
The school’s argued, even in cases where the law could apply to association, this matter would be different.
One key argument van Stempvoort made was that the colleague in the wedding didn’t also claim university discrimination. He said Kuilema’s complaint was moot without a member of the protected class making that case themselves.
“What his argument really boils down to is well, he still has to show that he himself, his employment discrimination, was because of sex,” van Stempvoort said.
The appellate court agreed with the university.
“Kuilema’s sex is irrelevant to Calvin University’s decision to terminate his employment. The university’s decision to terminate his employment was based upon his decision to officiate a same-sex wedding. That decision would not have been different if Kuilema were a female instead of a male,” the Court of Appeals majority opinion read.
In her closing remarks before the state Supreme Court, Huang claimed that reasoning would set a dangerous precedent.
“Allowing this Court of Appeals holding to stand that it must be because of the plaintiff's own sex, that would have a chilling effect upon people of different races and cultures, and sexes and sexual orientations. They could be fired for associating with one another with no recourse,” Huang said.
