Firing someone because of who they are rather than what they did is illegal in Michigan, full stop. This protection comes from multiple layers of law working together.

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits termination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees 40 and older from adverse actions based on age.
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities.

Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) provides protections that go beyond federal law in several respects. ELCRA covers race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, height, weight, familial status, and marital status. Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) mirrors and in some areas expands the ADA's reach for Michigan employees.

When a termination is tied to a protected characteristic, at-will status does not make it legal. The employer may have documentation, a performance review, or a stated business reason. If the real reason was discriminatory, the documentation is pretext.

Employees who report illegal conduct, file a complaint, cooperate with an investigation, or exercise a legal right are protected from being fired for doing so. This is one of the more common and misunderstood exceptions.

The WPA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report, or are about to report, a violation of law to a public body. This applies whether the report is internal or external. Timing matters significantly in these cases. A termination that follows closely on the heels of a complaint often tells its own story.

The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who raise workplace safety concerns, file a complaint with MIOSHA, or refuse to work under conditions they reasonably believe are dangerous.

• Title VII and the ADEA both include anti-retaliation provisions.
• The ADA prohibits retaliation against employees who request accommodations or file disability-related complaints.
• The FMLA prohibits termination in retaliation for taking or requesting protected leave.

Retaliation claims often succeed even when the underlying complaint was not ultimately proven. The act of complaining in good faith is protected, regardless of outcome.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitles eligible employees to up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for qualifying medical or family reasons. An employer cannot fire, demote, or otherwise penalize an employee for taking that leave or for requesting it.

• An employee returns from medical leave to find their position has been "eliminated."
• A termination follows a request for leave, even before the leave begins.
• An employer uses attendance or performance issues as a pretext when the absences were actually FMLA-protected.
• An employee is pressured to return before their leave expires.

Both interference with FMLA rights and retaliation for exercising them are actionable. The distinction between the two matters legally, but both represent violations of federal law.

Michigan courts have recognized that certain firings, even in an at-will relationship, violate public policy so clearly that they cannot stand. This exception covers situations where an employee is terminated for:

• Refusing to commit an illegal act at the employer's direction.
• Filing a workers' compensation claim after a workplace injury.
• Exercising a legal right or fulfilling a legal obligation, such as serving on jury duty.
• Reporting conduct that endangers public health or safety.

This exception does not require a specific statute to apply. Michigan courts have used it to fill gaps where the legislature has not yet codified a protection, reasoning that certain employer conduct is simply incompatible with the state's public interest. It is one of the more flexible tools available in a wrongful termination case.

This is one of the most commonly overlooked exceptions and one of the most fact-specific.

Michigan courts have held, going back to Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, that employer conduct and statements can create an implied contract that modifies the at-will relationship.

• An employee handbook that outlines termination procedures or promises progressive discipline before firing.
• Verbal assurances from management that an employee's job is secure or that termination will only occur "for cause."
• Offer letters with language that could be read to promise continued employment under certain conditions.
• Consistent company practices that employees have reasonably relied upon over time.

Employers frequently include at-will disclaimers in handbooks specifically to counter this exception. Whether those disclaimers are enforceable, and whether other statements or conduct override them, is often a matter of litigation. If you received written materials or verbal assurances about your job security, those documents are worth reviewing with an attorney.

Some employees are not at-will at all. If you signed a written employment agreement that specifies the terms and conditions of termination, those terms govern the relationship.

• A fixed employment term (e.g., a two-year contract).
• A "for cause" termination clause requiring documented justification.
• Severance provisions tied to the manner of termination.

If your employer terminated you in violation of your contract's express terms, the at-will default simply does not apply. Before accepting a separation package or signing a release, have your contract reviewed. What you were promised matters.