Win $100-Register

Michigan Supreme Court reinstates legislation on minimum wage and sick leave overruled by Republicans in the past

The Michigan Supreme Court made a significant ruling on Wednesday by overturning changes made by the Legislature to the state’s minimum wage and paid sick leave laws. The decision, in a 4-3 vote, was a win for low-wage workers, with the court stating that Republican lawmakers had violated the state constitution. These laws originated from a 2018 petition drive that gathered over 280,000 signatures. After the 2018 election, GOP lawmakers altered the laws before Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer took office in 2019.

Former Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed the legislation to roll back these laws before leaving office, leading to numerous legal battles that culminated in the matter reaching the state’s highest court. Justice Elizabeth Welch, aligned with the Democratic Party, emphasized the importance of not allowing the legislature to repeal laws it had just passed without the voters’ involvement in the process.

The state’s minimum wage, currently set at $10.33 per hour, with lower rates for those in tipped industries, was supposed to rise to $12 by 2022 based on the petition. The Supreme Court mandated a new wage schedule adjusted for inflation by the state treasurer, starting in February and increasing in subsequent years. Additionally, the law will phase out the lower minimum wage for tipped workers.

The sick leave provisions will oblige many businesses to grant paid time off to employees. While the Michigan Chamber, a statewide business association, expressed disappointment with the court’s decision, labor unions and activists applauded the outcome. Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber criticized Republicans for engaging in a five-year legal battle that “quite literally stole out of the pockets of Michigan workers.”

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement acknowledged the frustration with lawmakers’ actions but noted that the constitution does not prohibit such actions. Despite the temptation to intervene, Chief Justice Clement stated that the court does not possess the authority to create restrictions where they do not exist.

ALL Headlines