Michigan
Michigan Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Social Media, GPS & Cameras
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Michigan employees have a real statutory shield most states lack: the Internet Privacy Protection Act, MCL 37.271-37.278, bars employers from demanding access to a personal social media account. A second employment statute, the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, separately bars an employer from building a file on an employee's off-duty associations, political activity, or communications. Michigan still has no dedicated electronic-monitoring notice law, though, so email, internet, and video surveillance are governed by narrower criminal statutes and the state's one-party consent recording rule.
This guide is part of our Employee Monitoring Laws by State series. It covers social media privacy, electronic-monitoring notice, workplace video and audio surveillance, GPS tracking, and biometric time clocks under Michigan law.
Information last verified on 2026-08-31. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Michigan state law governing an employer's monitoring of employees: the Internet Privacy Protection Act, the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, electronic-monitoring notice (or the lack of it), hidden-camera restrictions, GPS tracking, and biometric monitoring. It does not re-derive Michigan's one-party consent recording framework in depth; for that, see the Michigan recording laws guide and its workplace recording page. For general GPS law, see the Michigan GPS tracking laws guide.
Michigan's Internet Privacy Protection Act protects employees' social media accounts
Michigan is one of at least 27 states with a social media password protection law, and its version, the Internet Privacy Protection Act (2012 PA 478, MCL 37.271-37.278), is one of the more detailed in the country. Under MCL 37.273, an employer may not request or require an employee or applicant to grant access to, allow observation of, or disclose information that allows access to or observation of a personal internet account, and an employer may not discharge, discipline, fail to hire, or otherwise penalize someone for refusing. The law covers both public and private employers and reaches personal social media, email, and similar accounts, not just employer-issued ones.
The act is not absolute. MCL 37.275 lists five categories of employer conduct that remain lawful: requiring access to employer-paid devices or accounts used for business; disciplining an employee for transferring proprietary or confidential company data to a personal account without authorization; investigating a personal account when the employer has specific information suggesting a compliance violation or unauthorized data transfer; restricting access to certain websites on employer-owned devices or networks; and monitoring, reviewing, or accessing electronic data on employer-paid devices or the employer's own network. An employer can also comply with federal screening requirements and view information an applicant has made publicly available without needing credentials.
What happens if a Michigan employer violates the Internet Privacy Protection Act?
MCL 37.278 makes a violation of the employer or educational-institution provisions a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000. An employee or applicant who is the subject of a violation can also bring a civil action to enjoin the conduct and recover up to $1,000 in damages plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs, but only after giving the employer written notice at least 60 days before filing suit, with reasonable documentation of the violation. An employer or educational institution can raise an affirmative defense by showing it complied with a federal or state legal requirement.
What an employer may keep a record of: the Bullard-Plawecki Act
Michigan's limits on employer monitoring do not stop at the Internet Privacy Protection Act. The Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act (1978 PA 397, MCL 423.501 to 423.512) regulates the output of monitoring rather than the watching itself. Under MCL 423.508(1), an employer may not gather or keep a record of an employee's associations, political activities, publications, or communications of nonemployment activities, unless the employee submitted that information in writing or authorized it in writing. The single carve-out covers activities that occur on the employer's premises or during the employee's working hours and that interfere with the performance of that employee's or another employee's duties. Any record kept under that section becomes part of the employee's personnel file. MCL 423.501 defines an employer as an entity with 4 or more employees, so the smallest workplaces fall outside the act.
That restriction does its real work in the gap the Internet Privacy Protection Act leaves open. An employer may lawfully view whatever an employee has made public on social media, because MCL 37.275(3) permits viewing publicly available information without credentials. Bullard-Plawecki is the statute that stops the employer from compiling and retaining a file on the off-duty political activity, associations, or communications it finds there.
MCL 423.509 governs the related investigation scenario. An employer with reasonable cause to believe an employee is engaged in criminal activity that might cause loss or damage to its property or disrupt its business may keep a separate investigative file, but it must notify the employee when the investigation is complete or after two years, whichever comes first. If no disciplinary action is taken, the investigative file and all copies of the material in it must be destroyed.
Enforcement runs through MCL 423.511, which lets an employee sue in circuit court to compel compliance and recover actual damages plus costs. For a violation that is willful and knowing, the employee may recover $200 plus costs, reasonable attorney fees, and actual damages.
Does Michigan require notice before other electronic monitoring?
No. Neither statute above is a monitoring-notice law, and Michigan has nothing comparable to Connecticut's, Delaware's, New York's, or Maine's laws requiring an employer to give written notice before monitoring work email, internet browsing, or general computer activity. An employer that reviews activity on its own network or employer-issued devices, which the Internet Privacy Protection Act's own exceptions already permit, does not trigger a separate notice duty under Michigan law. As with the other states in this cluster that lack a dedicated notice statute, the practical floor comes from federal law: the Electronic Communications Privacy Act's business-extension exemption, 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), excludes employer-furnished communications equipment used in the ordinary course of business from the Wiretap Act's definition of an interception device, a category that reaches an employer that owns the communication system, though the leading case, Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983), found that monitoring should generally stop once a call is identified as personal.
How does Michigan's one-party consent recording law interact with employer monitoring?
Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, and the participant exception recognized in Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), mean an employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record it without telling anyone else involved, even a supervisor. That rule governs whether recording a conversation is a crime; it does not control whether an employer can discipline an employee for violating a company no-recording policy, which remains a separate employment question. Employer-side monitoring, by contrast, generally does not implicate the eavesdropping statute at all when the employer is itself a party to the communication (a phone call routed through the company system) or is observing employer-owned equipment, which is why the Internet Privacy Protection Act and the private-place surveillance statute below, not the eavesdropping law, do most of the real work regulating employer conduct. For the full recording-consent picture, see the Michigan recording laws guide.
Are hidden cameras legal in a Michigan workplace?
Not in private areas. MCL 750.539d makes it a felony to install or use a device to observe, photograph, record, transmit, or eavesdrop on someone in a private place without consent, or to distribute the resulting images. A first offense carries up to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine; a repeat offense or a distribution violation carries up to five years and a $5,000 fine. The statute's main carve-out covers security cameras in a residence used by or at the direction of the owner or occupant, which is not the relevant exception for a workplace. A bathroom, locker room, or changing area at work generally qualifies as a private place under this statute, so an employer that installs a hidden camera there is exposed to felony liability regardless of any company monitoring policy. Cameras that are disclosed and cover general work areas, rather than spaces with a reasonable expectation of privacy, are evaluated differently and are addressed on the Michigan workplace recording page.
GPS and vehicle tracking of Michigan employees
MCL 750.539l makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, to install or place a tracking device on a motor vehicle without the knowledge and consent of the vehicle's owner or lessee, and the statute makes the violator liable for the owner's resulting damages. Because the law turns on the owner's or lessee's consent, an employer that owns or leases the vehicle it wants to track is generally exempt from the prohibition when tracking its own fleet, the same owner-consent structure found in most states' general tracking-device laws. The statute does carry a detailed list of other exceptions, including for parents tracking a minor child's vehicle and licensed private investigators, and it covers motor vehicles only; tracking a person's bag, coat, or phone instead falls under Michigan's stalking statutes. For the complete picture, including the private investigator exception's limits, see the Michigan GPS tracking laws guide.
Biometric time clocks and facial recognition
Michigan has not enacted a biometric privacy statute with the private right of action found in Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14. A comprehensive Michigan consumer privacy bill, the Personal Data Privacy Act (Senate Bill 359 of 2025), would create Michigan's first general consumer privacy framework and remained in the Senate Committee of the Whole as of mid-2026, not yet enacted. Illinois employers and timeclock vendors have faced very large BIPA payouts in recent years, though the figure most often quoted no longer exists. In Rogers v. BNSF Railway Co., a federal jury found that BNSF Railway had recklessly or intentionally committed 45,600 violations of BIPA, and the district court entered a $228 million judgment based on that finding (45,600 violations at $5,000 each), but the court later vacated that damages award on June 30, 2023 and ordered a new trial limited to damages, leaving the liability finding standing. The parties then settled for a $75 million fund covering roughly 46,500 class members, which the court estimated at about $1,000 per person, and final judgment was entered on June 18, 2024. Other settlements involving fingerprint timeclocks and driver-facing cameras have followed, but that exposure does not currently extend to Michigan employers using similar biometric technology. For more on how Michigan treats sensitive personal data generally, see the Michigan data privacy laws guide.
What Michigan employees should do if they are concerned about monitoring
An employee who is asked for a personal social media password should know that request itself likely violates MCL 37.273, and documenting the request in writing strengthens a later complaint or civil claim. Because Michigan employees may lawfully record their own workplace conversations under the Sullivan v. Gray participant exception, that tool remains available for documenting a problematic monitoring request, though an employee should weigh the separate risk that a company no-recording policy could still support discipline even where the recording itself is legal. Anyone who discovers a hidden camera in a bathroom or similar private space should preserve evidence and consider contacting law enforcement, since MCL 750.539d makes that conduct a felony independent of any workplace complaint.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about Michigan law governing employer monitoring of employees, as verified on 2026-08-31. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should consult a lawyer licensed in Michigan for advice about a specific workplace situation.
Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State: the complete hub
- Michigan Recording Laws
- Michigan Workplace Recording Laws
- Michigan GPS Tracking Laws
- Michigan Data Privacy Laws
Last updated: 2026-08-31. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-08-31.
More Michigan Laws
- Michigan AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Michigan At-Will Employment Laws
- Michigan Data Privacy Laws
- Michigan GPS Tracking Laws
- Michigan Recording Laws
- Michigan Whistleblower Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer make me give up my Facebook password in Michigan?
No. MCL 37.273 of the Internet Privacy Protection Act bars an employer from requesting or requiring access to a personal internet account, and from disciplining or firing an employee who refuses.
What can a Michigan employer still do under the Internet Privacy Protection Act?
An employer can still require access to employer-paid devices or accounts, discipline employees for transferring company data to a personal account, investigate a personal account when it has specific evidence of misconduct, restrict websites on company devices, and monitor its own network, under the exceptions in MCL 37.275.
Can my Michigan employer keep a file on my off-duty political activity?
Generally no. MCL 423.508 of the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act bars an employer with 4 or more employees from gathering or keeping a record of an employee's associations, political activities, publications, or communications of nonemployment activities without the employee's written authorization. The exception covers activity on the employer's premises or during working hours that interferes with job performance.
Does Michigan require my employer to tell me if it's monitoring my email?
Not under a dedicated notice statute. Michigan has no CT/DE/NY/ME-style electronic-monitoring notice law, so notice depends on company policy rather than a specific statutory requirement.
Can I record my boss in Michigan without telling them?
Generally yes, if you are a participant in the conversation. Michigan is a one-party consent state under MCL 750.539c, and the participant exception recognized in Sullivan v. Gray allows a party to a conversation to record it without the other participants' permission.
Can my employer put a hidden camera in the workplace bathroom?
No. MCL 750.539d makes it a felony to install a camera or recording device in a bathroom, locker room, or other private place without consent, regardless of any company monitoring policy.
Can my employer track my location with GPS in Michigan?
An employer can generally track a vehicle it owns or leases without violating MCL 750.539l, because that statute turns on the owner's or lessee's consent. Tracking an employee's personal vehicle without consent is a misdemeanor.
What happens if my Michigan employer violates the social media privacy law?
A violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $1,000 under MCL 37.278, and the affected employee can also sue for an injunction and up to $1,000 in damages plus attorney fees, after giving the employer 60 days' written notice.
Updates
Corrected the description of Rogers v. BNSF Railway Co.: the jury found the number of BIPA violations and that they were reckless or intentional, and the court, not the jury, entered the $228 million judgment.
Added Michigan's Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, which limits the records an employer may keep of an employee's off-duty associations and political activity, and corrected the biometrics section: the $228 million BNSF verdict was vacated in 2023 and the case settled for $75 million.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the source of the employer 'ordinary course of business' monitoring exception from 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i) (the service-provider exception) to the business-extension exemption at 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a), which is the provision employers actually rely on.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 37.273Duties of employerIn force
An employer shall not do any of the following: (a) Request an employee or an applicant for employment to grant access to, allow observation of, or disclose information that allows access to or observation of the employee's or applicant's personal internet account. (b) Discharge, discipline, fail to hire, or otherwise penalize an employee or applicant for employment for failure to grant access to, allow observation of, or disclose information that allows access to or observation of the employee's or applicant's personal internet account.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 37.275Certain acts by employer not prohibited or restrictedIn force
(1) This act does not prohibit an employer from doing any of the following: (a) Requesting or requiring an employee to disclose access information to the employer to gain access to or operate any of the following: (i) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer. (ii) An account or service provided by the employer, obtained by virtue of the employee's employment relationship with the employer, or used for the employer's business purposes. (b) Disciplining or discharging an employee for transferring the employer's proprietary or confidential information or financial data to an employee's personal internet account without the employer's authorization. (c) Conducting an investigation or requiring an employee to cooperate in an investigation in any of the following circumstances: (i) If there is specific information about activity on the employee's personal internet account, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulatory requirements, or prohibitions against work-related employee misconduct.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 37.278Violation of provisions of act as misdemeanor; civil action; injunction; damages; written demand and documentation; jurisdiction; affirmative defenseIn force
(1) A person who violates section 3 or 4 is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. (2) An individual who is the subject of a violation of this act may bring a civil action to enjoin a violation of section 3 or 4 and may recover not more than $1,000.00 in damages plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Not later than 60 days before filing a civil action for damages or 60 days before adding a claim for damages to an action seeking injunctive relief, the individual shall make a written demand of the alleged violator for not more than $1,000.00. The written demand shall include reasonable documentation of the violation. The written demand and documentation shall either be served in the manner provided by law for service of process in civil actions or mailed by certified mail with sufficient postage affixed and addressed to the alleged violator at his or her residence, principal office, or place of business.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 37.271Short titleIn force
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "internet privacy protection act".
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 750.539dInstallation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private placeIn forcecited in 32 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not do either of the following: (a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place. (b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. (3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 24 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lewis v. LeGrow held a bedroom in a private home is a "private place" under MCL 750.539d and that consenting to sex does not consent to being secretly videotaped there, sustaining civil awards. People v. Wilkens affirmed convictions including one under the section for a camera hidden in a shower used by tenants.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)✓A man hid a video camera in his own bedroom and taped three women having sex with him; the court held the bedroom was a private place under 539d and that consenting to sex did not mean consenting to be taped, so the jury verdicts against him stood.
- People v. Wilkens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 267 Mich. App. 728)“…ne count of eavesdropping through installation of a camera, MCL 750.539d. [1] The trial court sentenced defenda…”
- People v. Waltonen (Michigan Court of Appeals 2007, 272 Mich. App. 678)“…drug house, MCL 333.7405(l)(d); one count of eavesdropping, MCL 750.539d; and four counts of engaging the servic…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Statutes, and Penalties (2026), Michigan Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Doctor Visits (2026)
§ 750.539lTracking device; placement or installment on motor vehicle without consent; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; exemptions; inapplicability of subsection (2)(j); liability for damages; definitionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) A person who does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both: (a) Installs or places a tracking device, or causes a tracking device to be installed or placed, in or on a motor vehicle without the knowledge and consent of the owner of that motor vehicle or, if the motor vehicle is leased, the lessee of that motor vehicle. (b) Tracks the location of a motor vehicle with a tracking device without the knowledge and consent of either the owner or the authorized operator of that motor vehicle or, if the motor vehicle is leased, either the lessee or the authorized operator of that motor vehicle. (c) While being the restrained party under a protective order, tracks the location of a motor vehicle operated or occupied by an individual protected under that order with a tracking device.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2016
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People of Michigan v. Michael Joseph Ouellette (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016)“…rized installation of a tracking device on a motor vehicle, MCL 750.539l. Defendant was sentenced, as a third ha…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Michigan Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), GPS Tracking Laws by State: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
§ 750.539cEavesdropping upon private conversationIn forcecited in 44 of our articles
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 750.539c to reach third-party eavesdropping only. Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held the statutory phrase "private discourse of others" excludes recording by a participant in the conversation; People v. Lucas (1991) held an officer who answered an arrestee's ringing car phone did not violate the section.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)✓Police answering the arrested defendant's ringing car phone took drug-purchase calls and testified to them; the court held the officer was not an eavesdropper because there was no private discourse between the sender and some other receiver, so MCL 750.539c was not violated.
- Sullivan v. Gray (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 117 Mich. App. 476)✓A party to a phone call about a failed car dealership sale secretly taped it and the transcript was used in later litigation; reading the statute to reach only the private discourse of others, the court held participant recording is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c.
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)✓A motel switchboard operator deliberately listened in on a guest's call and reported it to police; the court held her willful eavesdropping violated MCL 750.539c, but the defendant, not shown to be a party to the call, had no standing to suppress the resulting evidence.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Tenant Rights (2026), Michigan Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes, Businesses, and Neighbors (2026), Michigan Dashcam Laws: Windshield Rules, Audio Recording, and Legal Use (2026)
§ 423.501Short title; definitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Bullard-Plawecki employee right to know act". (2) As used in this act: (a) "Employee" means a person currently employed or formerly employed by an employer. (b) "Employer" means an individual, corporation, partnership, labor organization, unincorporated association, the state, or an agency or a political subdivision of the state, or any other legal, business, or commercial entity which has 4 or more employees and includes an agent of the employer. (c) "Personnel record" means a record kept by the employer that identifies the employee, to the extent that the record is used or has been used, or may affect or be used relative to that employee's qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or disciplinary action. A personnel record shall include a record in the possession of a person, corporation, partnership, or other association who has a contractual agreement with the employer to keep or supply a personnel record as provided in this subdivision.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 56 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McManamon v. Redford Charter Township (Michigan Court of Appeals 2006, 273 Mich. App. 131)“…his action involving the Employee Right to Know Act (ERKA), MCL 423.501 et seq. In Docket No. 263260, defenda…”
- Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. Saginaw County Sheriff (Michigan Court of Appeals 1994, 204 Mich. App. 215)“…ng to an employee in the Employee Right to Know Act (erka), MCL 423.501 et seq.; MSA-17.62(1)…”
- Michigan Professional Employees Society v. Department of Natural Resources (Michigan Court of Appeals 1992, 192 Mich. App. 483)“…for certain documents under the Employee Right to Know Act, MCL 423.501 et seq.; MSA 17.62(1) et seq. We af…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Background Check Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 423.508Gathering or keeping certain information prohibited; exceptions; information as part of personnel recordIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) An employer shall not gather or keep a record of an employee's associations, political activities, publications, or communications of nonemployment activities, except if the information is submitted in writing by or authorized to be kept or gathered, in writing, by the employee to the employer. This prohibition on records shall not apply to the activities that occur on the employer's premises or during the employee's working hours with that employer that interfere with the performance of the employee's duties or duties of other employees. (2) A record which is kept by the employer as permitted under this section shall be part of the personnel record.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cullen v. St. Ignace, City of (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2023)“…e personnel record. Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.508. Plaintiffs argue that the records rel…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 423.509Investigation of criminal activity by employer; separate file of information; notice to employee; destruction or notation of final disposition of file and copies; prohibited use of information; release of information to certain law enforcement agenciesIn force
(1) If an employer has reasonable cause to believe that an employee is engaged in criminal activity that might result in loss or damage to the employer's property or disruption of the employer's business operation, and the employer is engaged in an investigation, then the employer may keep a separate file of information relating to the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation or after 2 years, whichever comes first, the employee must be notified that an investigation was or is being conducted of the suspected criminal activity described in this section. Upon completion of the investigation, if disciplinary action is not taken, the investigative file and all copies of the material in it must be destroyed. (2) An employer that is a criminal justice agency and that is involved in the investigation of an alleged criminal activity or the violation of an agency rule by an employee shall maintain a separate confidential file of information relating to the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, if disciplinary action is not taken, the employee must be notified that an investigation was conducted.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bukowski v. City of Detroit (Michigan Supreme Court 2007, 478 Mich. 268)“…endant also maintained that the Employee Right to Know Act, MCL 423.509(2), protected from disclosure certain i…”
- Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. Saginaw County Sheriff (Michigan Court of Appeals 1994, 204 Mich. App. 215)“…transfer, additional compensation, or disciplinary action. [MCL 423.509; MSA 17.62(9).] Thus, the Legisl…”
- Michigan State Police Troopers Assn Inc v. Dept of State Police (Michigan Court of Appeals 2020)“…must be kept in a separate, “confidential” file under ERKA, MCL 423.509(2). Thus, these “confidential” records…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 423.511Violation; action to compel compliance; jurisdiction; contempt; damagesIn force
If an employer violates this act, an employee may commence an action in the circuit court to compel compliance with this act. The circuit court for the county in which the complainant resides, the circuit court for the county in which the complainant is employed, or the circuit court for the county in which the personnel record is maintained shall have jurisdiction to issue the order. Failure to comply with an order of the court may be punished as contempt. In addition, the court shall award an employee prevailing in an action pursuant to this act the following damages: (a) For a violation of this act, actual damages plus costs. (b) For a wilful and knowing violation of this act, $200.00 plus costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and actual damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McManamon v. Redford Charter Township (Michigan Court of Appeals 2006, 273 Mich. App. 131)“…lus costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and actual damages. [MCL 423.511.] Defendant argues that Redford Towns…”
- Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)“…ed.] The pertinent portion of the Right to Know Act, MCL 423.511; MSA 17.62(11), states: [T\he court…”
- Earl D Booth v. Department of Corrections (Michigan Court of Appeals 2018)“…5; 495 NW2d 152 (1992). Plaintiff correctly observes that MCL 423.511 specifically provides that actions unde…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2950 — Personal protection order; restraining or enjoining spouse, former spouse, individual with child in common, individual in dating relationship, or person residing or having resided in same household from certain conduct; respondent required to carry concealed weapon; omitting address of residence from documents; issuance, contents, effectiveness, duration, and service of personal protection order; entering order into law enforcement information network; notice; failure to comply with order; false statement to court; enforcement; respondent less than 18 years of age; ownership interest in animal; definitions view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2950a — Personal protection order restraining or enjoining individual from engaging in conduct prohibited under MCL 750.411h, 750.411i, or 750.411s; facts alleging stalking; conduct; respondent required to carry concealed weapon; omitting address of residence from documents; reasons for issuing or refusing to grant order; mutual order prohibited; effectiveness, issuance, contents, and duration of order; duties of court clerk; entering order into L.E.I.N.; service; notice to law enforcement agency; enforcement; refusal or failure to comply; false statement to court; purchase or possession of firearm; person less than 18 years ; issuance to prisoner prohibited; definitions view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.8321 — Civil process; service view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Internet Privacy Protection Act, 2012 PA 478, MCL 37.271-37.278 (full act)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 37.273, Duties of employer (prohibited requests and retaliation)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 37.275, Acts by employer not prohibited (exceptions)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 37.278, Violations; misdemeanor; civil action; damages; notice requirement(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539d, Installing or using device to observe, photograph, or record person in private place; penalties(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982) (participant exception to eavesdropping statute)(courtlistener.com)
- Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983) (federal ordinary-course-of-business monitoring exception)(law.resource.org)
- 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a) (Electronic Communications Privacy Act definitions; business-extension exemption)(law.cornell.edu).gov
- NCSL, Privacy of Employee and Student Social Media Accounts (50-state tracker)(ncsl.org)
- MCL 423.508, Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act; records of employee associations, political activities, publications, and nonemployment communications(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 423.509, separate investigative file; notice to employee and destruction requirement(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 423.501, Bullard-Plawecki definitions (employer means an entity with 4 or more employees; personnel record)(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 423.511, civil action to compel compliance; actual damages, and $200 plus costs and attorney fees for a willful and knowing violation(legislature.mi.gov)
- Rogers v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 19 C 3083 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2024), Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (records the vacated $228 million award and the $75 million settlement fund for approximately 46,500 class members)(storage.courtlistener.com)
- Rogers v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 1:19-cv-03083 (N.D. Ill.) docket (entry 260, June 30, 2023 order vacating the damages award; entry 304, Final Order and Judgment, June 18, 2024)(courtlistener.com)