For decades, Michigan employers commonly tucked short lawsuit deadlines into job applications, onboarding acknowledgments, and employee handbooks. These clauses, often reducing the time to sue to six months, were treated by many courts as binding contractual terms enforceable against employees who later brought discrimination or retaliation claims under Michigan’s civil rights laws. That landscape changed dramatically on July 31, 2025, when the Michigan Supreme Court held that while contract clauses shortening limitations periods are not categorically unlawful, courts must scrutinize them closely when they appear in adhesive, non-negotiated employment agreements and enforce them only if they are reasonable. The decision recalibrates the balance between freedom of contract and the public policies embedded in Michigan’s civil rights statutes, and it significantly reshapes the risk calculations for both employers and employees going forward.
Please note this blog post should be used for learning and illustrative purposes. It is not a substitute for consultation with an attorney with expertise in this area. If you have questions about a specific legal issue, we always recommend that you consult an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case.
Michigan’s civil rights regime rests primarily on the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which broadly prohibits discrimination in employment and other areas and provides a three-year limitations period for civil actions unless a different period applies. That three-year timeframe functioned as a legislative judgment about how long it typically takes for victims to identify discrimination, consult counsel, and decide whether to litigate. Contractual provisions that shrink that window say, to 180 days attempt to reorder that balance and push employees to act far faster than the statute contemplates. The question before the Court was not whether parties may ever agree to shorter deadlines, but when such agreements, embedded in the realities of hiring and employment, become unreasonable or unconscionable in ways that undermine the remedial purposes of civil rights law.
The case that prompted the Court’s reexamination began like so many employment disputes: a new hire signed onboarding paperwork that included a broadly worded clause requiring that any claim against the employer including civil rights claims be filed within 180 days. Years later, after the employment relationship soured and allegations of discrimination surfaced, the worker filed suit within the three-year statutory period but outside the contractual six-month cutoff. Lower courts applied precedent that favored enforcing clear contractual terms and dismissed the case as untimely. On review, the Michigan Supreme Court used this fact pattern to squarely address whether boilerplate employment paperwork can meaningfully shorten statutory civil rights deadlines.
To understand why the answer is now “not necessarily,” some legal history helps. Earlier Michigan decisions, most notably Rory v. Continental Insurance Co., emphasized enforcing unambiguous contract language as written absent a specific legislative prohibition. That approach had been extended in employment cases, and many courts therefore honored six-month filing windows that appeared in applications, offer letters, and acknowledgments, even when employees had no real bargaining power and no realistic opportunity to negotiate the terms. The Michigan Supreme Court’s 2025 opinion marks a decisive turn away from a strict textual enforcement of these clauses in adhesive employment settings, and toward a more nuanced approach that restores reasonableness and unconscionability analysis when short deadlines are imposed through non-negotiated boilerplate.
In its ruling, the Court held that contractually shortened limitations periods remain generally permissible under Michigan law, but they are not automatically enforceable. Where the clause appears in a non-negotiated employment agreement precisely the sort of document an applicant is asked to sign as a condition of being considered for a job the provision must be examined for reasonableness. Traditional contract defenses apply, and because these agreements are typically contracts of adhesion, they may be procedurally or substantively unconscionable. The Court expressly overruled earlier appellate precedent that had afforded more deferential treatment to these provisions in the employment context, and it emphasized that remedial civil rights statutes cannot be contracted into near-irrelevance through in-house drafting choices that give employees far less time than the Legislature provided.
This shift matters because civil rights litigation is rarely simple or quick to tee up. Employees who experience discrimination or retaliation may spend months documenting incidents, weighing internal complaint channels, seeking medical or mental-health care, looking for new work, or engaging with administrative agencies. Compressing those steps into a 180-day sprint can effectively extinguish viable claims before they are fully recognized or investigated. The Court’s insistence on reasonableness review acknowledges that real-world context: a brief contractual window might be a manageable timeline for a routine commercial dispute between sophisticated parties with mutual leverage, but it can be an unfair hurdle for a newly hired employee who had no ability to negotiate and little understanding of the legal implications of the onboarding fine print.
Reasonableness, as the Court describes it, is not a rigid formula. It invites a fact-sensitive inquiry into how the clause works on the ground. Courts assessing such provisions are likely to consider the comparative length of the contractual deadline and the statutory period; the breadth of claims swept into the shortened window; the clarity and conspicuousness of the language; whether the employee had any bargaining power or meaningful choice; and whether external processes such as internal reporting channels or optional administrative filings make the abbreviated deadline especially impractical. The analysis will also engage traditional contract doctrines. If a clause is hidden, take-it-or-leave-it, and one-sided in a way that shocks the conscience, it may be deemed unconscionable and unenforceable, regardless of how short or long the stated timeframe is. The Court’s opinion is careful to preserve room for employers to craft reasonable provisions, but it warns against assuming that a six-month line in an application will carry the day simply because it’s printed in ink.
The immediate question for employers is what counts as reasonable in practice. The answer will vary with context, but several guideposts emerge from the decision and the commentary it has already generated. First, the closer the contractual deadline is to the Legislature’s three-year civil rights window, the easier it will be to defend. As the gap widens, especially at the six-month mark or below, the burden of justification intensifies. Second, if a clause purports to cover every possible claim under the sun including tort and statutory claims typically subject to multiple years courts may view it with more skepticism than a targeted provision tied to narrower categories of disputes. Third, how the term is presented matters: bold, plain-English language at the top of a short, stand-alone agreement is more defensible than dense, small-font text buried in a multipage handbook that the employee must acknowledge on a first day of work. Finally, the availability of internal grievance processes or optional agency filings may weigh against severely compressed court-filing deadlines, because those intermediate steps can eat much of a six-month window before an employee reaches the courthouse. None of these factors is dispositive, but together they chart what “close judicial scrutiny” will look like as lower courts implement the Supreme Court’s directive.
It is also useful to distinguish the 2025 decision from a separate development concerning claims against the State of Michigan. In 2023, the Supreme Court interpreted statutes governing suits against the State to effectively require civil rights plaintiffs to meet a one-year filing requirement in the Court of Claims, even though ELCRA’s default period is three years. That outcome flows from a specific statutory scheme for suing the State, rather than a private employer’s internal paperwork. Private employers cannot piggyback on that logic to impose their own one-year or six-month windows by contract without clearing the reasonableness and unconscionability hurdles the Court has now revived for adhesive employment agreements. The two strands of law operate in parallel, and employers should be careful not to conflate them.
For in-house counsel and HR leaders, the practical implications are immediate. Existing job applications, onboarding forms, and handbooks containing six-month limitations clauses should be audited. Where an employer has relied on boilerplate language for years, the safest path is to assume the provision will draw “close judicial scrutiny” and may not be enforced as written. Revising documents to improve clarity, conspicuousness, and mutuality is a start, but counsel should also consider whether a shortened deadline is even worth the risk of litigation. If the goal is to promote prompt reporting and early resolution, employers can pursue measures that align better with statutory policy, such as robust anti-discrimination policies, multiple reporting avenues, neutral investigations, and documented remedial steps. Those measures do more to mitigate liability than a clause that may not survive reasonableness review.
When employers conclude that a shortened period is still appropriate, careful tailoring is essential. A clause limited to certain contractual disputes, paired with a reasonable timeline that gives employees a fair opportunity to consult counsel after internal processes conclude, stands a better chance than a one-size-fits-all six-month cutoff for every statutory claim. Language should be plain and prominent. The agreement should not be a take-it-or-leave-it surprise on day one, but a separate document presented with an explanation and an opportunity to ask questions. Employers might also consider explicit tolling during internal investigations, so that employees are not penalized for using the very procedures employers encourage. These are not silver bullets, and courts will still weigh the totality of circumstances, but they reflect the kind of reasonableness the Supreme Court envisions.
The ruling also raises inevitable questions about arbitration programs, which often accompany or incorporate limitations provisions. The Court’s decision does not abolish arbitration agreements in employment, nor does it declare that any shortened limitation paired with arbitration is void. What it does is bring the shortened-deadline feature of those agreements into the same reasonableness and unconscionability analysis as other adhesive terms. Employers who depend on arbitration should revisit their forms to ensure the filing windows inside those agreements are defensible, the language is conspicuous, and the overall process affords a meaningful chance to be heard. That includes ensuring the arbitration rules do not impose hidden barriers that compress the timeline even further or that effectively deprive employees of statutory remedies. The safer course is to design dispute-resolution routes that honor both the efficiency goals of arbitration and the remedial purposes of civil rights law.
Employees and their counsel will, unsurprisingly, read the decision as an invitation to challenge aggressively shortened deadlines, especially those housed in antiquated applications and acknowledgments. Yet employees should not assume that any shortened deadline has become unenforceable. The Supreme Court did not ban these clauses; it demanded closer judicial scrutiny. A clearly presented, fairly negotiated, and reasonably calibrated provision may still be enforced. For employees evaluating potential claims, the practical takeaway remains the same as it has always been: act promptly. Consult counsel as soon as you suspect discrimination or retaliation. Use internal channels when appropriate, but do not allow those processes to run out the clock on your legal rights. Because civil rights deadlines can interact with other time limits administrative, contractual, or statutory early legal advice is the best hedge against forfeiting a viable claim.
For litigators, the decision rewrites the briefing playbook in motion practice. Employers can no longer rely on a simple syllogism unambiguous clause, employee’s late filing, case dismissed but must develop factual records that demonstrate reasonableness. That record might include evidence about onboarding practices, how terms were explained, whether the employee had alternatives or leverage, and what steps the employer took to make the timeline realistic in light of mandatory or encouraged internal processes. Employees, for their part, can marshal evidence that shows the practical impossibility of meeting a compressed deadline in the face of an internal investigation, medical leave, or the time needed to gather corroborating information and find counsel. The result will be more fact-intensive litigation around timeliness, but also, one hopes, better-designed policies that reduce disputes in the first place.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s reasoning also reflects a broader trend in contract law to differentiate between arms-length bargaining among equals and adhesive arrangements imposed as conditions of employment. The latter are not per se suspect, but they carry practical risks when they regulate access to statutory remedies. Civil rights statutes express public policy choices that extend beyond the parties’ private interests, and courts are understandably reluctant to see those policies thwarted by boilerplate. The renewed focus on reasonableness and unconscionability is a way of honoring both contract autonomy and the Legislature’s remedial goals, stopping short of a categorical bar on shortened.
periods while preventing the most aggressive versions from hollowing out the statute.
What, then, should Michigan employers do today? The most prudent course is to review and, where advisable, retire reflexive six-month limitations clauses for civil rights claims. If they are retained, they should be reengineered. Ensure the provision is conspicuous and explained before signature. Narrow its scope to claims where a shorter period can be genuinely defended as fair and efficient. Consider tolling during internal complaint processes. Audit arbitration agreements for similar issues. And pair any contractual change with stronger, well-communicated reporting and investigation protocols aimed at catching and curing problems early. These steps won’t guarantee enforcement, but they will better position the organization under the Court’s framework and, more importantly, help prevent conduct that leads to litigation in the first place.
From the employee’s perspective, the decision offers breathing room but not permission to wait. The default three-year window under ELCRA still governs unless a shorter, reasonable, enforceable contractual period applies. Because reasonableness is a case-specific inquiry, it is risky to assume any particular clause will be tossed out. The safest move remains prompt action documenting events, seeking advice, and evaluating both internal and legal remedies. As courts apply the Supreme Court’s guidance over the coming years, patterns will emerge about what timelines are tolerable and under what circumstances. Until then, diligence protects rights, and early counsel can help navigate the interplay of internal reporting, administrative options, and potential litigation.
Ultimately, the Michigan Supreme Court has not declared open season on employment contracts; it has reminded the bench and bar that context matters, particularly where statutory civil rights are at stake. The decision is a caution against letting adhesion paperwork erase legislative judgments about access to the courts. Employers who design fair processes and reasonable timelines will find that the law still respects contracts. Those who cling to one-size-fits-all six-month cutoffs may discover that what looked like a strong defense on paper will falter when measured against the realities of workplace disputes and the remedial purposes of civil rights law. The message is plain enough: contractual deadlines are still in the toolbox, but they must be built for the job.
Contact Tishkoff
Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/. & check out Tishkoff PLC’s Website (www.tish.law/), eBooks (www.tish.law/e-books), Blogs (www.tish.law/blog) and References (www.tish.law/resources).
Sources:
- Michigan Supreme Court, Rayford v. American House Roseville I, LLC, Opinion released July 31, 2025 (No. 163989). https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/2025/163989.html
- Michigan Department of Civil Rights, Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Public Act 453 of 1976 (MCL 37.2101 et seq.). https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-ACT-453-OF-1976
- Ogletree Deakins Insight, “Michigan Supreme Court Says Time Limits on Employment Claims Must Be Reasonable,” August 2025. https://ogletree.com/people/richard-w-warren/
- The National Law Review, “Michigan Supreme Court: Contractually Shortened Period of Limitations in Employment Agreements Must Be Examined for Reasonableness,” August 2025. https://natlawreview.com/article/michigan-supreme-court-says-time-limits-employment-claims-must-be-reasonable
This publication is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult counsel for advice on your specific circumstances