[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6227 June 6, 1984 CIVIL RIGHTS: Educational institutions--restriction upon use of housing based on marital status COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: Housing--restriction upon use based upon marital status DISCRIMINATION: Education institutions--restriction upon use of housing based upon marital status An educational institution is not prohibited by the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 453, art 4, Sec. 402, from restricting certain university housing facilities based upon marital status of enrolled students. The Honorable Harry Gast State Senator The Capitol Lansing, Michigan You have requested my opinion on the following question: May an educational institution discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a real estate transaction or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith on the basis of marital status? The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, hereinafter the Act, 1976 PA 453, as amended; MCLA 37.2101 et seq; MSA 3.548(101) et seq, art 4, Sec. 402, provides, in pertinent part: 'An educational institution shall not: '(a) Discriminate against an individual in the full utilization of or benefit from the institution, or the services, activities, or programs provided by the institution because of religion, race, color, national origin, or sex. '(c) For purposes of admission only, make or use a written or oral inquiry or form of application that elicits or attempts to elicit information concerning the religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status of a person except as permitted by rule of the commission or as required by federal law, rule, or regulation, or pursuant to an affirmative action program. (Emphasis supplied.) By its terms, section 402(c) is explicitly limited to the area of admissions. Review of the legislative history of 1976 PA 453, art 4, supra, reveals that it was introduced as HB 4055. Marital status was included as a protected category in each provision of article 4 until it was deleted entirely from House Substitute, 3 HJ 3128-3129 and 4 HJ 3802, 3810-3811 (1976). Marital status was subsequently reinserted in section 402(c) only, and that version of article 4 was enacted into law. 3 HJ 3128-3129 and 4 HJ 3706-3709 (1976). The legislative history of article 4 of the Act shows that the Legislature considered prohibiting marital status discrimination by educational institutions in all areas of operation and ultimately rejected that approach, except with respect to admissions. These actions are indicative of the legislative intent in the enactment of article 4 of the Act. Crawford v School Dist No. 6, 342 Mich 564, 569, 70 NW2d 789 (1955); Kizer v Livingston County Bd of Comm'rs, 38 Mich App 239, 246-249; 195 NW2d 884 (1972); Bowie v Coloma School Bd, 58 Mich App 233, 236-237; 227 NW2d 298 (1975). It follows that the Legislature did not intend to invalidate married student housing programs at state universities. Article 5 of the Act, supra, prohibits housing discrimination. Section 502(1), thereof, in pertinent part, provides: 'A person engaging in a real estate transaction, or a real estate broker or salesman, shall not on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status of a person or a person residing with that person: '(b) Discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a real estate transaction or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith.' Colleges and universities which provide housing to students are covered by article 4, the education provisions of the Act, supra. Since section 402(c) of the Act, supra, which governs admissions, is the only provision of that article which includes marital status as a protected category, it is not unlawful for such institutions to exclude unmarried students from married student housing. Nor would the provisions of article 5 of the Act, supra, which regulate the sale and rental of real property, require such institutions to provide housing for unmarried students in facilities reserved for married couples. Such housing is not available to the general public and is provided only to individuals enrolled in those institutions. Where enrollment is a condition precedent to obtaining student housing, article 4 of the Act, supra, applies inasmuch as the educational institution's housing function is incidental to its primary function of education. It is my opinion, therefore, that an educational institution is not prohibited by 1976 PA 453, art 4, Sec. 402, supra, from restricting certain university housing facilities based upon marital status of enrolled students. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]