Court says anti-bias law protects LGBTQ
By Ed White
Associated Press
DETROIT (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court on Thursday said the state’s anti-discrimination law covers sexual orientation, a victory for LGBTQ residents.
The court, in a 5-2 opinion, said the word “sex” in Michigan’s key civil rights law applies to more than gender.
While the Legislature in 1976 might have intended to help women when it barred discrimination based on sex, “this motivation does not curtail other applications of the plain statutory language,” Justice Elizabeth Clement wrote for the majority.
She noted that the law has been applied in pregnancy discrimination cases, same-sex sexual harassment and disputes over retirement accounts.
The decision means legal protections for LGBTQ people in employment, housing, education and public accommodations, said Jay Kaplan of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
“All people belong,” he said.
In 2019, Rouch World, an event center in Sturgis, Michigan, declined to host a same-sex wedding, saying it conflicted with the owner’s religious beliefs. That same year, a hair-removal business declined to serve a transgender woman.
“Where the discriminator tolerates certain characteristics in one sex but not the other, discrimination on the basis of sex has occurred,” the Supreme Court said.
Lawyers for Rouch World said it was up to the Legislature, not courts, to expressly state that Michigan law bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In a 33-page dissent, Justice Brian Zahra embraced that argument. He acknowledged that the result was a “victory for a good many Michiganders” but said the court’s role is to “say what the law is, not what it thinks the law ought to be.”
“No person familiar with the common usage of the English language in 1976 would have understood the ordinary meaning of ‘sex’ to include ‘sexual orientation,’” said Zahra, who added there’s evidence that lawmakers at that time rejected those two words.
Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is gay and had argued in favor of an expansive interpretation of the law, praised the outcome.
“Our residents deserve to live in a state that recognizes the value of diversity and rejects the notion that our own civil rights law could be used as a tool of discrimination,” Nessel, a Democrat, said.
Court bars automatic life sentences for 18-year-olds
By Ed White
Associated Press
DETROIT (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court outlawed automatic life sentences Thursday for people who were 18 when they participated in first-degree murder, opening a door to shorter prison terms and opportunities for parole.
In a 4-3 opinion, the court said mandatory no-parole sentences at that age violate the Michigan Constitution’s ban on “cruel or unusual” punishment.
The “sentence lacks proportionality because it fails to take into account the mitigating characteristics of youth, specifically late-adolescent brain development,” Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote for the majority.
Prosecutors still can pursue life sentences for 18-year-olds. But a judge first must hold a hearing where defense lawyers can present mitigating evidence, such as education, family life, decision-making skills and other factors.
It would be similar to the hearings now held for people who were 17 or younger when they participated in first-degree murder.
The decision leaves 17 states with a mandatory life sentence for 18-year-olds convicted of murder.
Michigan’s highest court ruled in the case of Kemo Parks, who was 18 in 2016 when he assisted his cousin in a murder outside a Flint market. His conviction meant an automatic no-parole sentence.
In dissent, Justice Elizabeth Clement said the court was intruding on the Legislature’s job to set criminal justice policy.
“I would not be surprised if the court extends its current line in the near future. ... Young adults are, after all, not the only ones subject to factors that cloud their reasoning — indeed, we are all subject to cognitive biases to different extents,” said Clement, who was joined by justices Brian Zahra and David Viviano.
The court did not indicate whether its opinion would be applied to other Michigan prisoners who have exhausted appeals of their sentence. But the court sent a similar case back to the Court for Appeals for more work, citing the Parks result.
“I believe it will be retroactive, but that needs to be litigated further,” said Jessica Zimbelman of the State Appellate Defender Office, known as SADO.
Another SADO attorney, Angeles Meneses, said the office represents many people in the same situation as Parks.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
