Right to Life suit alleges Michigan law infringes on its anti-abortion hiring rules

LANSING, Mich. — Right to Life of Michigan has filed suit against the state of Michigan over an amendment to the state's anti-discrimination law that the group said prohibits it from screening out employees who don't align with its views on abortion.

The federal lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Western Michigan on Friday, argued that a change to the state's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in 2023 altered the definition of sex — one of many characteristics protected from discrimination under the law — to include protections from discrimination based on "the termination of a pregnancy."

The change, the lawsuit said, essentially makes it illegal for Right to Life of Michigan to refuse to hire or deprive employment based on an individual's support for abortion. The law unconstitutionally violates the groups' First Amendment rights, including free speech, freedom of association, free exercise and religious autonomy as well as its 14th Amendment rights to due process, the lawsuit said.

The two plaintiffs in the suit, Right to Life of Michigan and the Pregnancy Resource Center, are represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom based in Scottsdale, Arizona. The suit named Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and each member of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission as defendants.

"Right to Life and PRC bring this suit to ensure they can continue to serve Michiganders without diluting their pro-life views through the lukewarm or hostile hires Michigan’s law demands," the lawsuit said.

The suit also alleged the groups are now required to provide abortion coverage in their insurance plans after a separate 2023 law repealed the Abortion Insurance Opt Out Act, which required women to pay for an additional insurance rider for abortion coverage.

Nessel's office, a named defendant in the suit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

State Sen. Erika Geiss, a Democrat who sponsored the civil rights bill, defended the legislation in a statement Friday. Geiss said the bill was meant to prevent employment discrimination against women who have had abortions and to bring the anti-discrimination law in line with a 2022 ballot initiative that enshrined an array of reproductive health rights in the state constitution.

"Right to Life of Michigan says a lot of things, but it seems their suit is asking for permission to engage in employment discrimination," Geiss said. "Additionally, I doubt that a person seeking a job with RTL Michigan would not align with their mission and stance, so such interview questions would likely be moot."

What the laws do

The changes to Michigan's anti-discrimination law, passed and enacted under the Democratic-controlled Legislature and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2023, were meant to bring the language of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in line with the 2022 voter-approved initiative enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution. A 2023 nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency analysis found that the legislation also appeared to mirror, to some extent, existing federal civil rights laws.

"Some feel that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act should be amended to remove any conflicts with the recent changes to state law and to align the act with federal law," the analysis said.

The House Fiscal Agency analysis also noted at that time that there were concerns from those opposed to the legislation that it would require small employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion even if it conflicted with their mission or religious beliefs. Opponents also argued the legislation conflicted with First Amendment rights, the analysis said.

Legislators in favor of the 2023 law change repeatedly rejected amendments that would have exempted religious employers and employers who object to abortion on moral grounds, the lawsuit said.

Separate from the changes to the anti-discrimination law, lawmakers in 2023 repealed the Abortion Insurance Opt Out Act, as part of the 2023 Reproductive Health Act. The repeal removed a requirement that women seeking abortion coverage pay for an optional insurance rider.

The lawsuit noted that in a news release on Whitmer's signing of the bills, Geiss is quoted as saying the bill package ensured "all Michiganders have access to reproductive health care unencumbered by other people's deeply held beliefs."

RTL, PRC: Rules affect hiring process

Right to Life of Michigan currently employs about 40 people and generally hires about four new employees each year, according to the lawsuit. In recent communications with applicants, the lawsuit said, the group has removed a question asking a job candidate to describe his or her thoughts on the group's mission and values because of the change in law prohibiting it.

"The purpose of this screening step was to ensure the applicant was familiar with Right to Life and could articulate his or her support for Right to Life’s mission and values," the suit said.

Questions about a job candidate's views on abortion, abortion in the case of rape or incest or assisted suicide are asked during the job interview; the employee handbook acknowledges the group's anti-abortion stance; and an employee is required to sign a document detailing the group's guiding principles and code of ethics, the suit said.

"These steps form an integral part of Right to Life’s hiring process because they provide Right to Life with several ways to verify the candidate’s commitment to Right to Life’s mission and values," the lawsuit said.

The Pregnancy Resource Center is a group that seeks to help pregnant women facing unplanned pregnancies through counseling, medical services or practical support, according to the lawsuit.

The group expects its employees and volunteers to adhere to and agree with PRC's positions on abortion and the sanctity of life, the lawsuit said.

"In accordance with PRC’s Positions, employees and volunteers must themselves refrain from having, and helping others procure abortions and from promoting abortion and refrain from using, or helping others procure, abortifacient drugs or devices while employed with or volunteering with PRC," the lawsuit said.

PRC's roughly 40 employees and 200 volunteers, the lawsuit said, must affirm they agree with PRC's positions, including on abortion. Additionally, employees are expected to acknowledge and sign a handbook detailing the PRC's vision, doctrine and positions on abortion.