The Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on a question distinct from whether Michigan law protects LGBTQ people from discrimination: Can an employee sue under state law if an employer allegedly acted against him because of his association with others? Former Calvin University professor Joseph Kuilema is asking the court to let his associational-discrimination claim proceed, Michigan Advance reported.
Kuilema taught social work at Calvin from 2008 to 2022. The university did not reappoint him after learning he had officiated an October 2021 wedding between a transgender man and a woman. He now teaches at Grand Valley State University. In a 2023 lawsuit, he alleged retaliation and associational discrimination under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MLive reported.
Related rulings address different questions
The legal backdrop includes a 2022 Michigan Supreme Court ruling that the Elliott-Larsen Act’s prohibition on discrimination because of “sex” covers sexual orientation and gender identity. But that separate case, Rouch World, concerned what the statute protects—not whether an employee may bring a claim based on association with another person. The distinction is noted by the office of Sen. Jeremy Moss.
The statute’s wording also changed after Kuilema’s employment ended. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed an expansion on March 16, 2023, adding express protections based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights reported. That later change is context, not an answer to how the law applies to Kuilema’s earlier claim.
Other cases illustrate why the theories should not be conflated. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that federal Title VII could cover a coach’s claim that he was fired because he married a Black woman. That was a federal race-discrimination case, not a decision on Michigan’s sex-discrimination law; the Second Circuit opinion is reproduced by FindLaw.
A separate 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling involved retaliation: an employee alleged he was fired because his fiancée had filed a sex-discrimination charge against their employer, and the court held he could sue. It arose from the Sixth Circuit but did not decide an associational-discrimination claim under Michigan law, as the Supreme Court opinion explains. These examples show related legal pathways, not a ruling on the question now before the Michigan justices.
Arguments and next steps
Kuilema’s attorney, Charissa Huang, argued that the state law can apply when an employer acts against someone because of that person’s association with others, without requiring the plaintiff’s own sex to be the reason for the decision, according to Michigan Advance and MLive. Calvin’s attorney, Stephen J. Vanstempvoort, argued that a claimant must show the decision was based on the claimant’s own protected characteristic. Calvin has also invoked constitutional religious-freedom protections for its employment decisions, according to Michigan Public.
A lower court declined to dismiss the associational-discrimination claim, but the Michigan Court of Appeals later ruled that Kuilema could not sue because his own sex did not affect Calvin’s decision, according to Michigan Advance and MLive. The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine whether that claim can go forward; it will not, by itself, establish that discrimination occurred. No ruling had been issued as of Thursday. The court’s argument schedule lists the hearing.
