Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
McCready v. Hoffius
586 N.W.2d 723 (Mich. 1998) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52253
Description
Michigan Civil Rights Act Protects Unmarried Cohabitants from Housing Discrimination
Abstract
The Michigan Supreme Court held that defendant landlords, in
violation of the state’s civil rights law, discriminated
against plaintiff prospective tenants on the basis of their marital
status. Defendants refused to rent to plaintiffs when defendants
learned that plaintiffs were single but intended to live together.
Defendants told plaintiffs that unmarried cohabitation violated
defendants’ religious beliefs. Granting defendants’
motion for summary judgment, the trial court held that unmarried
cohabitation was not protected conduct under the civil rights law.
The appellate court affirmed, and plaintiffs appealed. The supreme
court held that defendants’ refusal to rent their apartments
to plaintiffs solely because they were unmarried constituted
marital status discrimination in violation of the civil rights law.
Noting that plaintiffs’ marital status, and not their conduct
in living together, was the root of defendants’ objection to
renting apartments to plaintiffs, the court concluded that the
civil rights law protected unmarried cohabitants against housing
discrimination. The court rejected defendants’ argument that
the civil rights law violated defendants’ religious freedom
rights. Even assuming that defendants’ beliefs were sincerely
held and religiously based and that the civil rights law imposed a
burden on those beliefs, the court held that a compelling state
interest in eradicating discrimination in real estate transactions
justified the burden on defendants' religious beliefs.
