Michigan Developments
Eric Rule,
Director of Governmental Affairs

Bathroom legislation likely to pass
A bill requiring retailers to open employee restrooms to individuals with certain medical conditions enjoyed solid support from both Republican and Democratic members of the House Commerce Committee. HB 5046, sponsored by Rep. Andy Meisner (D-Ferndale), is expected to pass, potentially unanimously. Similar bills have recently passed in other states.

MRA testified in support of this “common sense customer service” bill after working with Meisner to achieve numerous protections for retailers. The bill will only apply to individuals who offer medical proof of a condition that causes urgent need of a restroom.

Individuals with Crohn’s Disease and Irritable Bowel Syndrome testified extensively before the committee, often tearing up when describing their embarrassing encounters in public places where no public restrooms were readily available.

HB 5046 specifically states that a retail establishment cannot deny a customer with a doctor’s note or prescription access to a bathroom as long as one is located in an area that wouldn’t present an obvious health or safety risk.

A retailer would be exempt in cases where there was only one employee working at the time and would not be liable for any injury to the customer. The bill also would not require retailers to make any changes to existing facilities.

MRA joins phone tax opposition
MRA recently joined the coalition asking legislators to reject a phone tax proposal that would be a huge new tax on businesses in Michigan.

HB 4852 would shift $200 million in taxes onto telephone and cell phone bills to free up more tax dollars that legislators can spend on other projects. Supporters label it a “public safety surcharge,” but some law enforcement organizations, business groups and local units of government say that’s not accurate.

Originally the bill called for a fee of $1.35 per month per line. The coalition was effective in keeping the bill from leaving the House Appropriations Committee, and at press time a vote still had not occurred. The latest information, however, is that the amount may be reduced to $.50 or $.60 to make the issue more palatable to legislators and consumers.

The reduced amount would still translate into a huge new tax to businesses across the state. MRA will continue to advocate against the bill and urge members to do the same.

Find information on the issue at www.Hangupthephonetax.com. You can even link directly to your state representative or senator to share your views.

MBT fix in the works
A technical correction to the recently enacted Michigan Business Tax passed the House Tax Policy Committee and is expected to receive full House consideration in early September.

The “fix” deals with making sure companies won’t appear to have a bigger future tax liability than they really have.

The correction would impact future tax deductions, and the Department of Treasury claims it would cost the state approximately $1 billion between 2013 and 2023. Business groups and other proponents claim the estimate is far too high and say that even if figures were higher than expected, there would be time to adjust the tax.

The bill moved unanimously through committee. By voting in favor of it, Democrats on the committee showed they are serious about helping businesses deal with their tax burden, even at the expense of disagreeing with Governor Jennifer Granholm and Treasury.

In fact, Committee Chair Paul Condino (D-Southfield) mentioned that he believed the fix was in the original MBT published by the House.

Update from Washington
James Goldberg,
MRA Washington Counsel

New rules on ‘no match’ letters
In the wake of a failed effort to push comprehensive immigration reform legislation through Congress, the Bush Administration has announced a stepped-up enforcement plan aimed at keeping illegal immigrants out of the workplace.

Under new rules announced by the Department of Homeland Security, employers who receive a “no match” letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) will have 30 days to check their records, make any necessary corrections and verify them with the SSA. If there are no errors in the records, the impacted worker must be informed of the discrepancy; the employee then has 90 days to contact the appropriate agency and correct the problem.

If the worker cannot provide the necessary documentation to the government at the conclusion of the 90-day period, the employer must fire the worker or become liable for violating federal law.

“No match” letters are issued by the SSA whenever information provided by employers (i.e., names and Social Security numbers of workers) does not match information in the SSA files. Illegal immigrants often use someone else’s Social Security number when applying for work.

In the past, enforcement against employers for not complying with “no match” letters was lax. But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff also stated that he’s going to seek legislation authorizing SSA to share with him the names of employers who receive large numbers of “no match” letters.

SSA issues approximately 130,000 “no match” letters annually, and many are the result of simple error, such as transposing numbers in a worker’s Social Security number.

Innocent Sellers Fairness Act draws support
The plight of an immigrant couple who operate a small dry cleaning establishment in Washington, D.C. has sparked an upsurge in interest on Capitol Hill into enacting the Innocent Sellers Fairness Act.

You may know their story: a customer dropped off a pair of pants for alterations and subsequently picked up trousers which he claimed were not his. Citing the couple’s “satisfaction guaranteed” claim, the customer sued the couple for $54 million in damages.

The customer lost, rejected the couple’s offer to withdraw their claim for legal fee reimbursement and filed an appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

The Innocent Sellers Fairness Act was introduced with little fanfare in early February by Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK) and Steve Chabot (R-OH), but the co-sponsor list has swelled to 50, due largely to the adverse publicity surrounding the so-called “pants” suit.

The Act declares it unfair for a seller to be held responsible for damages that it did not cause. It declares that no seller (i.e., wholesaler or retailer) shall be liable for personal injury or monetary loss arising out of an accident or transaction involving a product sold, unless the seller was the manufacturer of the product, participated in the product’s design or installation or altered, modified or expressly warranted the product in a manner not authorized by the manufacturer.

Not only is congressional support for the legislation building, but so is the backing of Washington-based interest groups. Included in the bill’s list of supporters are the National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Congress may scrutinize price maintenance decision
MRA’s Washington Office is beginning to pick up some rumblings on Capitol Hill of congressional interest in overturning the Supreme Court’s recent decision legalizing resale price maintenance in certain circumstances.

The first step may be hearings this fall before the House Judiciary Committee focusing on whether the Court went too far in overturning a nearly 100-year-old rule that held that manufacturer and retailer agreement to set retail prices is per se unlawful.

Supporters of the decision are quick to point out that the ruling did not legitimize price maintenance in all situations, because future manufacturer actions could still be scrutinized by courts to determine whether they were “reasonable.”

The retail industry is apparently divided on the impact of the Court’s holding, as are antitrust scholars, so congressional hearings, if they are held, could shed light on a possible legislative course of action.