Read on Twitter
The Court left for another day questions re housing, education, and public accommodation discrimination under *federal* law. But, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission has answered those questions under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. A thread. 
1/18 https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/15/michigan-womans-case-wins-landmark-transgender-ruling/3192376001/
1/18 https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/15/michigan-womans-case-wins-landmark-transgender-ruling/3192376001/
In a response to a request from @Equality_MI, the MCRC issued Interpretive Statement 2018-1, which concluded that ELCRA's prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdcr/MCRC_Interpretive_Statement_on_Sex_05212018_625067_7.pdf 2/18
You can read @Equality_MI's June 2017 request for an interpretive statement in full here: https://www.scribd.com/document/465777010/EQMI-Request-for-Interpretative-Statement-FINAL 3/18
It's also worth reviewing the comments submitted by a number of Michigan lawyers and legal scholars, including @EliNSavit and @MarkTottenMI, in support of @Equality_MI's request: https://www.scribd.com/document/465777498/Mcrc-Letter-Re-Eqmi-Request-Final 4/18
Also, the comment submitted by @sbagen, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Justice: https://www.scribd.com/document/465864760/Sam-Bagenstos-ELCRA-Letter 5/18
After the MCRC issued Interpretive Statement 2018-1, the Republican leaders of the House and Senate requested an opinion of the Attorney General on the Commission's authority to interpret ELCRA: https://www.scribd.com/document/465777895/Meekhof-Leonard-Request-for-OAG-Re-MCRC 6/18
Then-Attorney General Bill Schuette thereafter issued OAG, 2017-2018, No. 7305 (July 20, 2018), which purported to invalidate Interpretive Statement 2018-1: https://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2010s/op10384.htm 7/18
It's important to recognize that Opinion No. 7305 was wrong, as a matter of law, when it was issued and it is wrong today. It conflicted with analogous, contemporaneous interpretations of Title VII, which have now been definitively resolved in Bostock v Clayton County. 8/18
In addition to these federal authorities, Opinion No. 7305 relies substantially on Barbour v Dep’t of Social Services, 198 Mich App 183 (1993). But, as Leaders Singh & Ananich explained at the time, the Attorney General misapplied that holding: https://www.scribd.com/document/465772833/Singh-Ananich-Comment-on-OAG-Request-2018-0219769A 9/18
Moreover, Barbour, issued in 1993, itself relied on analogous federal interpretations of Title VII that had been repudiated by many federal courts, including the Sixth Circuit, by 2018 & that Bostock resolves against Attorney General Schuette's position in Opinion No. 7305. 10/18
In February 2019, the MCRC asked Attorney General Nessel to revisit the issue of the Commission's authority and the validity of Interpretive Statement 2018-1: https://www.scribd.com/document/465860624/Mcrc-Oag-Request 11/18
Attorney General Nessel opted not to revisit the substance of Opinion No. 7305, citing the Attorney General's longstanding policy of declining to provide opinions with respect to issues that are pending in litigation: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/Civil_Rights_Commission_-_Info_ltr_signed_658379_7.pdf 12/18
Attorney General Nessel did note in her response to the MCRC that, under the circumstances, the Commission was not bound by Opinion No. 7305 and that the Commission may continue to follow Interpretive Statement 2018-1, which it has done since that time. 13/18
It is worth noting that in her response to the MCRC, the Attorney General herself rightly calls into question the continuing validity of the Court of Appeals' Barbour holding. 14/18
While it would be entirely appropriate and desirable, now that Bostock has been decided, for the AG to revisit and rescind Opinion No. 7305, such action is unnecessary to allow the MCRC to continue enforcing ELCRA in accordance with Interpretive Statement 2018-1. 15/18
In short, under Interpretive Statement 2018-1, employment, housing, & public accommodation discrim. based on gender identity & sexual orientation are unlawful sex discrim. under ELCRA *today.* @LGBTMAP provides a useful illustration of the current state of the law. 16/18
If you have experienced discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations based on your sexual orientation or gender identity, you should contact @MiCivilRights and file a complaint. 17/18
All of that having been said, neither Bostock nor Interpretive Statement 2018-1 alleviate the need to amend ELCRA to provide explicit nondiscrimination protection based on gender identity and sexual orientation, which remains an important policy objective. 18/18
