What Michigan employers should know about contractually shortened limitation periods
More than a year after Rayford v. American House Roseville I, LLC, Michigan courts are beginning to define what the decision means for employers that use agreements shortening the time employees have to bring legal claims.
The practical message is clear: Employers should no longer assume that a six-month or one-year limitation period will be enforced simply because the provision is clearly written. Courts will look closely at how the agreement was presented and whether the shortened period gave the employee a realistic opportunity to investigate and pursue a claim.
What Rayford changed
Before Rayford, employers often relied on Michigan decisions enforcing clearly stated contractual limitation periods, including provisions requiring employment claims to be filed within 180 days. Rayford changed that analysis for adhesive employment agreements.