Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the relationship between employers and employees. Businesses can now deploy software capable of measuring employee productivity, recording computer activity, tracking location, reviewing communications, evaluating job applicants, generating performance scores, predicting behavior, and recommending employment decisions. Some of these technologies can provide legitimate benefits by improving safety, identifying production problems, protecting information systems, reducing administrative burdens, and allowing employers to make better use of large quantities of workplace data. At the same time, increasingly sophisticated monitoring technology has raised concerns about employee privacy, discrimination, transparency, and the possibility that important employment decisions may effectively be delegated to algorithms that neither employees nor managers fully understand.
Michigan House Bill 5579 would address those concerns through a proposed law known as the “Responsible Artificial Intelligence Security for Employees Act,” or RAISE Act. Introduced on February 24, 2026, HB 5579 would substantially regulate the use of automated decision tools and electronic monitoring systems by Michigan employers. ¹ The proposal is noteworthy not simply because it regulates artificial intelligence, but because its definition of electronic monitoring is broad enough to potentially encompass many technologies employers already use, including computers, telephones, cameras, electronic communications systems, location technologies, and other systems that gather information about employee activities or communications.
As of September 2, 2026, HB 5579 has not become law. It remains pending in the Michigan House Committee on Economic Competitiveness. ² A substantially corresponding Senate proposal, Senate Bill 1077, was introduced on June 24, 2026 and referred to the Senate Committee on Labor. ³ Employers therefore do not presently have to comply with HB 5579 merely because it has been introduced. Nevertheless, Michigan businesses that use artificial intelligence, productivity software, applicant-screening systems, electronic monitoring, cameras, GPS tracking, workplace analytics, or similar technologies should pay close attention to the legislation. If enacted substantially in its present form, it could require employers to fundamentally reconsider how workplace technology is selected, implemented, disclosed, documented, and used.
One of the most important things Michigan employers should understand is that HB 5579 is not limited to generative AI or sophisticated artificial intelligence systems. Its regulation of an “automated decisions tool” would apply to computational processes derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, artificial intelligence, or similar processes when the system produces a score, classification, recommendation, or other simplified output that substantially assists or replaces discretionary decision-making concerning an individual. ¹
The concept of an employment-related decision is similarly expansive. The bill would cover decisions affecting wages, benefits, compensation, hours, scheduling, performance evaluations, hiring, discipline, promotions, termination, job duties, assignment of work, access to work opportunities, productivity requirements, workplace health and safety, and other terms or conditions of employment. ¹ Consequently, an employer does not necessarily escape the proposed law merely because a human manager technically makes the final decision. A system that substantially assists the manager through scores, rankings, flags, or recommendations could potentially qualify.
Even more significantly, HB 5579 separately regulates “electronic monitoring tools.” The proposed definition reaches systems that collect information concerning a covered individual’s activities or communications through means other than direct observation, expressly including computers, telephones, wires, radios, cameras, electromagnetic systems, and photoelectronic or photo-optical systems.¹ This means the legislation potentially affects much more than software conventionally marketed as “AI.”
An employer using software that records employee screens, measures computer activity, tracks a delivery employee through GPS, analyzes call-center interactions, records warehouse activity through sensors, generates productivity statistics, or provides managers with automated performance dashboards may need to determine whether that technology falls within the legislation. The same question could arise concerning security systems, fleet-management programs, timekeeping technologies, electronic badges, customer-service platforms, and software embedded within ordinary human-resources applications.
The proposed coverage is also exceptionally broad from an organizational standpoint. An “employer” would generally include a person engaging one or more individuals to perform work for compensation in Michigan. Third parties and service providers used for electronic monitoring or employment-related decision-making are expressly included. The proposed definition of employee also extends to independent contractors providing services to or through an employer.¹ Employers therefore should not assume that the legislation is limited to large corporations or conventional employer-employee relationships.
Perhaps the most consequential provision of HB 5579 is its general prohibition against employers using automated decision tools to make employment-related decisions. ¹ The principal exception contained in the introduced bill permits automated tools to screen large volumes of job applications for two purposes: identifying applicants who satisfy established hiring criteria and assessing applicants based on job skills.
That structure is substantially more restrictive than laws that merely require notice or bias audits before employers use artificial intelligence. If enacted as written, the Michigan proposal could prevent employers from using automated systems to substantially assist decisions concerning discipline, termination, promotion, scheduling, compensation, performance evaluation, assignment of work, and many other workplace issues.
For employers already using technology that generates “risk scores,” productivity scores, attendance flags, recommended schedules, performance rankings, suggested disciplinary actions, or promotion recommendations, the practical question would therefore become more fundamental than whether the system is accurate. The employer would need to determine whether using the system for the contemplated decision is permissible at all.
The proposed restriction could also affect systems that employers do not currently think of as artificial intelligence. An analytics program does not necessarily have to generate conversational text or operate through a large language model to qualify as an automated decision tool. Statistical models, data analytics, or other computational processes that generate recommendations or classifications could be covered when they substantially influence an employment decision.
This distinction should become part of technology procurement. Employers considering new workforce-management software should understand not only what data the software collects, but what the software does with that information. A system that merely stores scheduling information presents a different issue from one that analyzes attendance patterns and recommends which employees should receive preferred shifts. Similarly, software that organizes applicant materials may present different issues from software that scores, ranks, or eliminates candidates.
HB 5579 would not categorically prohibit all electronic monitoring. Instead, it identifies purposes for which an employer could use electronic monitoring, including facilitating an essential job function, monitoring production processes or quality, periodically assessing employee performance, complying with labor or employment laws, protecting health, safety, or security, and administering wages and benefits under specified conditions. The Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity would also have authority to identify additional purposes that enable business operations. ¹
These exceptions recognize that electronic workplace technology is not inherently improper. Manufacturing employers, for example, may need sensors and computer systems to evaluate production quality and detect dangerous operating conditions. Transportation companies may have legitimate reasons for using location information. Health-care institutions may need electronic systems to protect patient safety and document compliance. Employers in regulated industries may be legally required to retain certain communications or maintain monitoring systems.
The difficult question is how those legitimate purposes interact with other restrictions contained in the bill. HB 5579 requires monitoring to be narrowly tailored, conducted through the least invasive means reasonably available, limited to the smallest necessary number of individuals, collect the least amount of information necessary, and occur no more frequently than necessary. ¹ It would also prohibit collecting employee data while the employee is off duty.
These requirements would effectively establish a proportionality standard for workplace surveillance. Under that approach, an employer would not necessarily justify extensive monitoring simply by identifying a legitimate business purpose. The employer would also need to demonstrate that the manner and scope of monitoring were appropriately limited to that purpose.
One of the provisions employers should monitor particularly carefully during the legislative process concerns the types of information that electronic monitoring systems may collect. HB 5579 would prohibit collection of certain health, medical, lifestyle, wellness, and protected-characteristic information. It also prohibits a broad range of information relating to workplace activities. ¹
The latter category is especially important. The introduced text identifies human-resources information, performance evaluations, productivity and efficiency information, workplace communications, emails, text messages, internal message boards, customer interactions and ratings, device usage, telephone activity, geolocation information, audio-video information, sensor information, and certain automated-tool inputs and outputs among the information that may not be collected through a covered tool. ¹
This creates a potentially important interpretive problem. Elsewhere, HB 5579 expressly permits electronic monitoring for purposes including monitoring production and quality and periodically assessing employee performance. Yet the prohibited-data provisions include productivity, efficiency, performance, communications, device usage, and other information that might ordinarily be necessary to conduct precisely those forms of monitoring.
For example, an employer could theoretically be permitted to use electronic monitoring to periodically assess performance while being prohibited from collecting productivity information through the same monitoring tool. Similarly, a call-center employer might have a legitimate quality-control purpose but face restrictions concerning the collection of customer interactions, ratings, communications, or audio information.
If the legislation advances, amendments or agency regulations may clarify how these provisions are intended to operate together. Until then, employers evaluating HB 5579 should avoid reducing the proposal to a simple rule that monitoring is permitted whenever one of the listed business purposes exists. The categories of permitted purposes and prohibited data would have to be considered together.
HB 5579 also addresses biometric and behavioral technologies directly. An employer could not use an electronic monitoring tool or automated decision tool equipped with facial, gait, voice, or emotion recognition technology. ¹
This prohibition could affect technologies marketed as providing advanced workplace security, employee identification, behavioral analysis, applicant assessment, call-center analytics, or worker-safety capabilities. Employers should therefore look beyond a vendor’s marketing label. A software package sold primarily as a security or productivity product may nevertheless contain facial recognition, voice analysis, emotion detection, or another feature prohibited by the legislation.
The restriction on emotion recognition is particularly relevant as AI developers experiment with software that claims to infer engagement, attentiveness, sentiment, stress, honesty, enthusiasm, or other characteristics from facial expressions, speech patterns, or behavior. Employers considering such technologies should recognize that their claimed usefulness does not necessarily mean legislators will permit their employment-related use.
The bill would impose substantial transparency requirements. An employer using a covered electronic monitoring or automated decision tool would have to provide written notice to individuals subject to the technology and obtain written consent. ¹ Employees would also have rights concerning the accuracy of collected information and would be entitled to correct inaccurate information about themselves.
Separate notice requirements would apply before implementation. At least thirty days before implementing a covered tool, the employer would have to provide written notice to employees. The employer would also have to display a workplace poster concerning the use of such technology. Notice would have to be included in every job posting, published on the employer’s website, and provided directly to applicants. Applicant notices would need to be made available in accessible formats accounting for disabilities and, where applicable, an applicant’s first language. ¹
Most significantly, the notice would have to permit a covered individual to opt out. If an employee or applicant opts out, the employer could not use the electronic monitoring or automated decision tool to make employment-related decisions concerning that individual. ¹
This could create complicated operational questions for employers that use integrated software systems. Many workforce technologies operate across an entire department or organization rather than on an employee-by-employee basis. An employer might therefore need an alternative procedure for employees who decline participation.
Suppose, for example, an employer ordinarily uses a permitted applicant-screening tool to identify candidates satisfying minimum qualifications. If an applicant opts out, the employer may need a separate manual review process. Similar issues could arise when an employer uses electronic systems for permitted performance assessments or other operational purposes.
Employers would have to ensure that opting out does not itself become a negative factor in the employment process. Otherwise, an ostensible opt-out right could become meaningless if declining electronic monitoring effectively reduces an employee’s access to opportunities or influences management decisions.
HB 5579 would impose an unusually detailed assessment process before employers use covered technology. The impact assessment would have to evaluate the tool’s objectives, algorithms, underlying data, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and potential bias, including discriminatory outcomes associated with race, gender, disability, or other protected characteristics. ¹
The assessment would also have to identify the attributes and modeling techniques used to generate the tool’s outputs and evaluate whether those techniques constitute scientifically valid methods of assessing employee performance or ability to perform essential job functions. It would examine whether particular variables could operate as proxies for protected classifications, whether training data or outputs create disparate impacts, whether the tool creates accessibility problems for individuals with disabilities, and what steps could reduce discriminatory effects. ¹
The bill expressly connects this assessment process with Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Michigan employers already may not make employment decisions because of protected characteristics identified by ELCRA. ⁶ The use of an algorithm does not erase that obligation. If an employer’s software systematically disadvantages employees or applicants based upon a protected classification, the fact that the disparity originated within a vendor’s model rather than a manager’s conscious decision would not necessarily eliminate legal risk.
HB 5579 would go further by requiring employers to examine such risks prospectively. The assessment would have to be performed by an independent and impartial third party without a relevant financial or legal conflict of interest. Subsequent assessments would be required annually while the tool remains in use. ¹
The timing requirement deserves particular attention. As presently drafted, the assessment for a new tool must be conducted one year before the tool is implemented. For technology already being used when the proposed act becomes effective, the employer would have six months after the effective date to complete the assessment. ¹ If the “one year before implementation” requirement remains in a final law, it could materially lengthen technology procurement and implementation schedules.
Within sixty days after completing the assessment, the employer would have to submit either the assessment itself or an accessible summary to the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity for inclusion in a public registry and distribute the assessment to covered individuals who may be subject to the tool. ¹ Employers would consequently need to consider confidentiality, intellectual-property, cybersecurity, and vendor-contract issues when arranging these assessments.
The impact-assessment requirements create a related problem: employers frequently do not know exactly how third-party AI products operate. Vendors sometimes treat algorithms, training information, technical specifications, weighting methodologies, and model architecture as proprietary information.
HB 5579 would make that lack of visibility difficult to sustain. Employers would have to retain documentation concerning the design, development, use, and data associated with covered tools when that documentation is necessary for an impact assessment. The bill specifically contemplates information concerning data sources, technical specifications, individuals involved in development, historical use information, and previous versions of the tool. Service providers contracting with employers would be required to provide employers access to required documentation. ¹
Technology contracts would therefore become an important component of compliance. Michigan employers purchasing AI or monitoring software may eventually need contractual rights to technical information, audit cooperation, data documentation, security information, version histories, assistance with employee notices, and information necessary to investigate alleged discriminatory results.
Indemnification and allocation of responsibility would also become important. An employer facing an employee claim because a vendor’s system generated inaccurate or discriminatory results will want to know what remedies exist against the vendor. Conversely, software providers will likely seek contractual limitations on liability.
Even before HB 5579 becomes law, this is a useful procurement lesson. An employer should be cautious about allowing a third-party technology to meaningfully affect employment decisions when the vendor cannot explain what information the system uses, how its recommendations are produced, how accuracy is tested, or whether meaningful bias testing has occurred.
HB 5579 would also regulate what happens after employee information is collected. An employer generally could retain covered information for no more than three years after the purpose for which the monitoring or automated tool was used has been achieved, unless a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise. Information collected but not actually used would have to be deleted
immediately .¹
The bill would prohibit selling or licensing covered employee data, including data that has been aggregated or deidentified. Sharing covered data with state or local government would also be restricted, subject to exceptions including legal requirements, Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity reporting, and compliance with subpoenas, warrants, or court orders. ¹
A security breach would trigger particularly significant obligations. The employer would have to secure the affected system, mitigate harm, and provide notice to affected covered individuals within forty-eight hours after discovering the breach. Notice would also be required to the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity and Attorney General. ¹
The introduced bill goes considerably further by requiring extensive identity-protection benefits for affected individuals, including ten years of paid premium identity-theft protection and insurance, comprehensive credit monitoring, dark-web monitoring, account-breach alerts, a three-bureau credit freeze, fraud remediation, Social Security number monitoring, and bank-fraud and transaction monitoring. The proposed insurance coverage requirement is at least $5 million for each affected covered individual. ¹ A third-party audit would also be required following a breach to ensure that vulnerabilities were corrected.
These provisions could dramatically increase the financial consequences of an employee-data breach. Cybersecurity review would therefore become an essential part of evaluating whether a monitoring technology’s business benefits justify the information-security risks created by collecting additional employee data.
The bill expressly preserves collective bargaining rights and provides additional protections in unionized workplaces. It states that its requirements are minimum standards and are not intended to diminish employees’ rights to bargain over terms and conditions of employment. ¹
Where employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement and an employer intends to use electronic monitoring or an automated decision tool to set or influence wages or other terms and conditions of employment, the employer would have to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain regarding the intended use. The employer would also have to provide bargaining representatives with information needed for bargaining, including collected data, impact assessments, and information concerning data breaches. ¹
This aspect of the legislation overlaps conceptually with existing federal labor-law concerns. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity concerning wages, working conditions, and other terms of employment, while Section 8 restricts employer interference with those rights.⁹ Electronic surveillance can create particular concerns where employees reasonably believe that protected organizing or concerted activity is being monitored.
HB 5579 would expressly prohibit covered technologies from being used to identify, punish, or obtain information concerning individuals engaged in activity protected under federal or state labor or employment law. ¹ Employers using electronic monitoring should therefore consider not only what a technology technically can observe but whether collecting that information could interfere with protected workplace activity.
Michigan employers currently operate under several laws that address particular privacy and discrimination concerns, but existing Michigan law does not impose a comprehensive framework comparable to HB 5579.
Michigan’s Internet Privacy Protection Act, for example, generally restricts employers from demanding access credentials to employees’ or applicants’ personal internet accounts. At the same time, the statute expressly recognizes an employer’s ability, consistent with applicable law, to monitor or access electronic data stored on employer-paid devices or traveling through or stored on an employer’s network.⁷
HB 5579 would take a materially different approach. The fact that equipment or a network belongs to the employer would not necessarily answer whether monitoring is permissible. Instead, the employer would have to consider purpose limitations, employee notice and consent, opt-out rights, data restrictions, assessment requirements, retention obligations, and the other requirements imposed by the proposed act.
Michigan law also already protects privacy in certain physical locations. Michigan’s criminal prohibition concerning devices used to observe, record, photograph, transmit, or eavesdrop within a private place illustrates the longstanding distinction between ordinary workplace observation and surveillance where a person is entitled to privacy.⁸ HB 5579 would expand upon that concept by expressly prohibiting covered monitoring in bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, breakrooms, smoking areas, employee cafeterias, lounges, areas designated for expressing breast milk, and areas used for prayer or religious activity. ¹ It would also restrict audio or visual monitoring of an employee’s home workplace, personal vehicle, or property.
The legislation should therefore be understood not simply as another privacy statute, but as an effort to create a comprehensive employment-specific regime governing data collection, surveillance, and automated decision-making.
Employers should not interpret the bill’s pending status to mean that workplace AI currently operates in a legal vacuum. Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act already prohibits discriminatory employment decisions based upon protected characteristics, including race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, and marital status.⁶ Federal employment discrimination laws likewise continue to apply when employers use technology to select, classify, evaluate, promote, discipline, or terminate employees. ¹⁰
A discriminatory employment decision does not necessarily become lawful merely because software contributed to it. If an employer uses an algorithmic tool that disproportionately excludes members of a protected class, evaluates characteristics that act as proxies for protected classifications, or produces inaccessible screening procedures for applicants with disabilities, existing discrimination law may become relevant regardless of HB 5579.
The practical lesson is that human review remains valuable. Employers should resist treating an AI-generated score or recommendation as presumptively objective merely because a computer produced it. Algorithms reflect design choices, training data, selected variables, mathematical assumptions, and organizational priorities. A system can consistently reproduce an undesirable result just as easily as it can consistently produce a useful one.
HB 5579 would not depend solely upon government enforcement. A covered individual allegedly aggrieved by a violation, or certain persons acting on behalf of that individual, including a labor organization, could bring a civil action seeking damages, injunctive relief, or both. A prevailing plaintiff could potentially recover economic damages, noneconomic damages, costs, and attorney fees. ¹
Separately, violations would be subject to a civil fine of up to $500, enforceable by the county prosecutor or Michigan Attorney General. Courts could issue injunctions and award costs and reasonable attorney fees in enforcement proceedings. ¹
For employers, the private right of action may ultimately be more significant than the nominal civil fine. Litigation concerning alleged monitoring violations could involve discovery into software configurations, vendor communications, algorithmic methodologies, impact assessments, employee data, technical specifications, internal policies, and the employer’s decision-making process.
A claim challenging a termination or promotion decision could potentially become both an employment case and a technology case. Instead of examining only what the manager knew and why the manager acted, the parties might dispute what information an algorithm used, how that information was weighted, whether the underlying data were accurate, whether the employee corrected inaccurate data, whether an impact assessment revealed disparities, and whether the employer followed its own assessment findings.
That possibility makes documentation important. If employers use algorithmic systems, they should be able to explain what role those systems play and identify the human decision-makers who remain responsible for employment actions.
Because HB 5579 remains proposed legislation, employers do not need to reorganize their operations as though the bill were already law. They should, however, use the proposal as a reason to determine what technology is actually operating within their workplaces.
Many businesses may discover that electronic monitoring or automated analytics exist in systems that management has never classified as AI. Human-resources platforms, applicant-tracking software, security programs, vehicle systems, manufacturing equipment, telephone platforms, customer-service applications, timekeeping systems, and productivity applications increasingly incorporate automated analytics.
The first practical objective should be visibility. Employers should understand what information each system collects, whether collection continues outside working hours, how long information is retained, who receives it, whether information is shared with vendors, and whether the system generates recommendations or scores that affect employment decisions.
The next objective should be purpose. Employers should be able to identify a legitimate business reason for monitoring rather than collecting information merely because technology makes collection possible. That approach is prudent even under existing law and would position employers more favorably if Michigan ultimately adopts a statutory requirement that monitoring be narrowly tailored and conducted through the least invasive means.
Employers should also examine vendor agreements. Contracts for AI-enabled workforce technology should provide sufficient access to information for the employer to understand the system, investigate complaints, verify data accuracy, assess discrimination and security risks, comply with litigation obligations, and respond to changing legal requirements.
Finally, employers should preserve meaningful human responsibility for employment decisions. A manager should not be encouraged to treat an algorithmic recommendation as an unquestionable answer. Human review is particularly important when decisions affect hiring, discipline, compensation, promotion, scheduling, or termination.
HB 5579 remains pending in the Michigan House Committee on Economic Competitiveness as of September 2, 2026.² The introduction of Senate Bill 1077 in June demonstrates that the proposal is now present in both chambers, although the existence of companion legislation does not mean either bill will necessarily become law in its current form. ³
The introduced language contains provisions that may generate substantial debate, including the broad definition of monitoring, restrictions on workplace-activity information, employee opt-out rights, the one-year reimplementation impact-assessment requirement, extensive breach remedies, and the interaction between permitted monitoring purposes and prohibited categories of data. Michigan businesses and employment counsel should therefore watch not only whether the legislation advances but whether committee substitutes or amendments materially revise these provisions.
Regardless of HB 5579’s ultimate fate, the legislation reflects a larger shift in employment law. Questions once framed primarily as technology-management decisions are increasingly becoming legal questions about privacy, discrimination, labor rights, data security, transparency, and corporate governance.
Michigan employers do not need to abandon useful technology. They do, however, need to understand it. The era in which an employer could purchase a workforce-management system, activate every available feature, and treat the resulting data as ordinary management information may be coming to an end.
Employers that can identify what their systems collect, explain why monitoring is necessary, understand how automated recommendations are produced, maintain meaningful human oversight, test for discriminatory effects, protect employee information, and document legitimate business purposes will be better positioned regardless of precisely what form Michigan’s eventual AI employment legislation takes.
HB 5579 is still a proposal, not current Michigan law. But for Michigan employers already using AI and electronic employee monitoring, it provides a valuable preview of the compliance questions lawmakers, regulators, employees, unions, and courts are increasingly likely to ask.
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).
Footnoted Sources
1- Michigan House Bill No. 5579, 103rd Legislature, 2025–2026 Regular Session, introduced February 24, 2026, proposed “Responsible Artificial Intelligence Security for Employees Act,” §§ 1–19. https://legiscan.com/MI/text/HB5579/id/3373691
2- Michigan Legislature, House Committee on Economic Competitiveness, Committee Bill Record for House Bill 5579 of 2026; HB 5579 introduced February 24, 2026 and referred to the Committee on Economic Competitiveness. https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-HB-5579
3- Michigan Senate Bill No. 1077, 103rd Legislature, 2025–2026 Regular Session, introduced June 24, 2026, proposed “Responsible Artificial Intelligence Security for Employees Act”; referred to the Senate Committee on Labor. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-SB-1077
4- Colin Jackson, “Democrat-Led Bill Looks to Regulate AI Workplace Monitoring in Michigan,” Michigan Public Radio Network, February 23, 2026. https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2026-02-23/democrat-led-bill-looks-to-regulate-ai-workplace-monitoring-in-michigan
5- Michigan Chamber of Commerce, “Michigan Lawmakers Propose Strict Limits on How Employers Can Use AI to Monitor Employees,” February 25, 2026. https://www.michamber.com/news/michigan-lawmakers-propose-strict-limits-on-how-employers-can-use-ai-to-monitor-employees/
6- Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101 et seq., particularly MCL 37.2202. https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-ACT-453-OF-1976
7- Michigan Internet Privacy Protection Act, 2012 PA 478, MCL 37.271–37.278, particularly MCL 37.273 and MCL 37.275. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Act-478-of-2012
8- Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.539d, concerning use of devices for observing, recording, photographing, transmitting, or eavesdropping in a private place. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-539d
9- National Labor Relations Act §§ 7–8, 29 U.S.C. §§ 157–158, concerning protected concerted activity and unfair labor practices. https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act
10- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, particularly 42 U.S.C. § 12112. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964