Michigan
Michigan Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Michigan employees may legally record any workplace conversation they participate in. Although MCL 750.539c prohibits eavesdropping on others, courts recognize a participant exception that satisfies the consent requirement when the recorder is a party to the conversation. Employers may still discipline or terminate workers who violate a company no-recording policy.
Michigan does not have a dedicated workplace recording or workplace surveillance statute. Instead, workplace recording is governed by the state's general eavesdropping and surveillance laws, combined with employer policies, federal labor law, and whistleblower protections.
This creates a situation where an employee's recording may be perfectly legal under criminal law but still result in disciplinary action or termination under company policy. Understanding both sides of this equation is essential for Michigan workers and employers.
Employee Recording Rights in Michigan
The Participant Exception at Work
Under the participant exception established in Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58 (1982), endorsed by the Sixth Circuit in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022), which predicted Michigan law follows the participant exception, and applied in the federal litigation in AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas, No. 17-13292 (E.D. Mich.), Michigan employees can generally record conversations they participate in at work. This includes:
- One-on-one meetings with a supervisor
- Performance reviews and disciplinary meetings
- Conversations with coworkers
- Phone calls with clients or customers (when the employee is a party)
- HR meetings and complaint discussions
- Team meetings where the employee is present
The employee does not need to inform the other participants that recording is taking place. Their own participation satisfies the consent requirement under Michigan law.
What Employees Cannot Record
The participant exception does not give employees the right to:
- Place a hidden recording device in a conference room to capture meetings they do not attend
- Record conversations between other coworkers that the employee is not part of
- Install surveillance equipment in the workplace without authorization
- Record in areas designated as private, such as restrooms or changing areas
These actions would constitute either third-party eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c or illegal surveillance under MCL 750.539d, both of which are felonies.
The Gap Between Legal and Allowed
A critical distinction exists between what is legal and what an employer permits. Michigan is an at-will employment state, meaning employers can terminate employees for any reason that is not specifically prohibited by law. Many Michigan employers maintain policies that prohibit workplace recording.
An employee who records a conversation at work in compliance with Michigan law but in violation of company policy can face:
- Verbal or written warnings
- Suspension
- Termination
- Loss of benefits
The recording itself would not be a crime, but the violation of company policy provides a lawful basis for discipline in an at-will employment relationship.
NLRA Protections for Recording
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides some protection for employees who record workplace conversations related to "concerted activity" for mutual aid or protection. Under the standard set by the NLRB in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), overly broad no-recording policies can violate Section 7 of the NLRA if they would reasonably chill employees' exercise of their rights. (Note: NLRB GC 25-05, issued February 14, 2025, was a housekeeping rescission of prior guidance memos, not a substantive policy change -- Stericycle remains the controlling standard.)
This means an employer's blanket ban on all workplace recording may be unenforceable under federal labor law if it interferes with employees' rights to discuss wages, working conditions, or organize collectively. However, this protection is limited and context-dependent.
Employer Surveillance Rights in Michigan

Video Surveillance
Michigan employers can install video cameras in the workplace for legitimate business purposes. Common legally permissible locations include:
- Entrances and exits
- Parking lots and loading docks
- Retail sales floors
- Warehouses and production areas
- Hallways and common areas
- Cash registers and point-of-sale stations
Employers should provide written notice to employees that video surveillance is in use. While Michigan law does not explicitly require notice for video-only surveillance in non-private areas, providing notice serves two purposes: it avoids disputes over reasonable expectations of privacy, and it complies with best practices recommended by employment law professionals.
Prohibited Surveillance Locations
MCL 750.539d prohibits surveillance in any "private place." In the workplace context, these include:
- Bathrooms and restrooms
- Changing rooms and locker rooms
- Nursing and lactation rooms
- Private offices when the door is closed (without the occupant's consent)
- Break rooms designated as private spaces
Installing cameras in these areas is a felony, regardless of the employer's stated business purpose.
Audio Surveillance by Employers
Audio surveillance presents the greatest legal risk for Michigan employers. A stationary workplace camera that records audio captures the conversations of employees and visitors, and the employer operating the camera is not a participant in those conversations.
Under the eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539c), recording the "private discourse of others" without their consent is a felony. An employer who installs audio-recording cameras in the workplace without informing employees could face criminal prosecution.
To use audio surveillance legally, employers should:
- Provide clear written notice to all employees that audio recording is in progress
- Post visible signage in areas where audio is recorded
- Obtain signed acknowledgments from employees
- Limit audio recording to areas where employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy
Computer and Phone Monitoring
Michigan employers may monitor company-owned computers, email systems, and phone lines with proper notice. Most employers include monitoring disclosures in employment agreements, acceptable use policies, or employee handbooks.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) at the federal level provides exceptions for monitoring on employer-owned equipment when the employer has provided notice. Michigan does not have a separate employee electronic monitoring statute, so federal law and the general eavesdropping statute govern.
Whistleblower Protections

Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act
MCL 15.362 prohibits employers from discharging, threatening, or discriminating against employees who report or are about to report violations of law to a public body. This protection extends to:
- Reporting violations of state or federal law
- Reporting violations of regulations
- Participating in investigations or hearings related to reported violations
If an employee records evidence of illegal activity in the workplace, that recording may be protected under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act. Courts evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis, considering whether the recording was made in good faith to document a genuine legal violation.
Remedies for Whistleblower Retaliation
Under MCL 15.363, employees who experience retaliation for whistleblowing can file a civil action within 90 days of the violation. If the employee prevails, MCL 15.364 authorizes the court to order remedies including:
- Reinstatement to the former position
- Payment of back wages
- Full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights
- Actual damages
- Costs of litigation
Recording as Whistleblower Evidence
An employee who records a supervisor committing fraud, harassment, or other illegal conduct may argue that the recording is protected whistleblower activity. The strength of this argument depends on several factors:
- Was the employee a participant in the recorded conversation?
- Was the recording made in good faith to document a legal violation?
- Did the employee report the violation to an appropriate public body?
- Was the employer's disciplinary action motivated by the whistleblowing rather than the policy violation?
Workplace Harassment and Recording

Recording Evidence of Harassment
Employees who experience workplace harassment often consider recording interactions to preserve evidence. Under the participant exception, an employee can legally record harassing statements directed at them during conversations they are part of.
These recordings can serve as powerful evidence in harassment complaints filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or in civil litigation. Audio recordings can corroborate the employee's account when witnesses are unavailable or when the harassment occurs behind closed doors.
Employer Recording of Harassment Investigations
Employers conducting harassment investigations may record interviews with participants' knowledge and consent. Recording investigation interviews creates an accurate record and can protect both the employer and the employees involved.
However, secretly recording investigation participants without their knowledge may violate the eavesdropping statute if the person operating the recording equipment is not a participant in the conversation being recorded.
Union Workplaces and Recording
In unionized Michigan workplaces, additional rules may apply. Collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) may contain provisions addressing workplace recording and surveillance. These provisions can expand or restrict recording rights beyond what state law provides.
Union representatives may have the right to record certain meetings under the NLRA, particularly grievance proceedings and other collective bargaining-related discussions. Employers should review their CBAs before implementing or enforcing recording policies in unionized workplaces.
Best Practices for Employers
-
Establish a clear, written recording policy. Specify where surveillance cameras are located, whether audio is recorded, and what employee recording is permitted or prohibited.
-
Provide notice of all surveillance. Post signs in monitored areas and include surveillance disclosures in employee handbooks.
-
Never place cameras in private areas. Bathrooms, changing rooms, and lactation rooms are always off-limits.
-
Separate video and audio. If possible, use video-only surveillance to avoid eavesdropping statute complications.
-
Review policies with legal counsel. Ensure recording policies comply with the NLRA, Michigan eavesdropping law, and anti-discrimination statutes.
Best Practices for Employees
-
Know your rights. You can legally record conversations you participate in under the Sullivan participant exception.
-
Know your employer's policy. Even legal recordings can result in discipline if they violate company policy.
-
Keep recordings secure. Store recordings safely and do not share them casually.
-
Consult an attorney before recording sensitive situations. If you plan to record evidence of harassment, discrimination, or illegal activity, get legal guidance first.
-
Understand whistleblower protections. If you record evidence of legal violations and report them to authorities, you may have protection against retaliation.
Related Michigan Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
← Back to Michigan Recording Laws
More Michigan Recording Topics
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a meeting with my boss in Michigan?
Yes. Under Michigan's participant exception established in *Sullivan v. Gray*, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), you can legally record any conversation you are part of without telling the other participants. This includes meetings with your supervisor, HR discussions, and performance reviews. However, if your employer has a no-recording policy, violating it can result in disciplinary action or termination.
Can my employer record me at work in Michigan?
Your employer can use video surveillance in common workplace areas like lobbies, hallways, and sales floors with proper notice. Cameras in bathrooms, changing rooms, and other private areas are prohibited under MCL 750.539d. Audio surveillance is more restricted because it can violate the eavesdropping statute if the employer is not a participant in the recorded conversations.
Can I be fired for recording at work in Michigan?
Yes. Michigan is an at-will employment state. Even though recording your own conversations is legal under the participant exception, violating an employer's no-recording policy can provide a lawful basis for termination. The recording is not a crime, but the policy violation can result in discipline.
Does Michigan's whistleblower law protect employees who record evidence of illegal activity?
The Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MCL 15.362) protects employees who report legal violations to a public body. If you record evidence of illegal workplace activity while participating in a conversation and report it to authorities, you may have protection against retaliation. Courts evaluate these situations case by case.
Can my employer listen to my phone calls at work in Michigan?
Employers can monitor calls on company-owned phone lines with proper notice. Most employers include monitoring disclosures in employment agreements or acceptable use policies. Monitoring personal calls on personal devices without consent would likely violate the eavesdropping statute. The federal ECPA provides additional guidelines for employer monitoring of electronic communications.
Updates
Corrected the AFT Michigan v. Project Veritas case citation (removing a nonexistent 2026 ruling) and refined the Fisher v. Perron characterization and an NLRB memo date.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the whistleblower-remedies statute attribution: the civil-action-filing/venue provisions are MCL 15.363, but the actual list of court-ordered remedies (reinstatement, back pay, fringe benefits, litigation costs) is codified in MCL 15.364, which was added to the citations.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539cEavesdropping upon private conversationIn forcecited in 42 of our articles
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 750.539c to reach third-party eavesdropping only. Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held the statutory phrase "private discourse of others" excludes recording by a participant in the conversation; People v. Lucas (1991) held an officer who answered an arrestee's ringing car phone did not violate the section.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)✓Police answering the arrested defendant's ringing car phone took drug-purchase calls and testified to them; the court held the officer was not an eavesdropper because there was no private discourse between the sender and some other receiver, so MCL 750.539c was not violated.
- Sullivan v. Gray (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 117 Mich. App. 476)✓A party to a phone call about a failed car dealership sale secretly taped it and the transcript was used in later litigation; reading the statute to reach only the private discourse of others, the court held participant recording is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c.
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)✓A motel switchboard operator deliberately listened in on a guest's call and reported it to police; the court held her willful eavesdropping violated MCL 750.539c, but the defendant, not shown to be a party to the call, had no standing to suppress the resulting evidence.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Tenant Rights (2026), Michigan Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes, Businesses, and Neighbors (2026)
§ 15.362Discharging, threatening, or otherwise discriminating against employee reporting violation of law, regulation, or rule prohibited; exceptionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 231 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- West v. General Motors Corp. (Michigan Supreme Court 2003, 469 Mich. 177)“…III Plaintiff’s whistleblower claim is brought under MCL 15.362, which states: An employer shall not…”
- Whitman v. City of Burton (Michigan Supreme Court 2013, 493 Mich. 303)“…f matters of public concern. Rather, the plain language of MCL 15.362 controls, and we clarify that a plaint…”
- Phinney v. Perlmutter (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 222 Mich. App. 513)“…cted activity and the discharge, threat, or discrimination. MCL 15.362; MSA 17.428(2); Terzano, supra…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Whistleblower Laws: Protections and How to Report
§ 15.363Civil action in circuit court for injunctive relief or actual damages; "damages" defined; clear and convincing evidence requiredIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) A person who alleges a violation of this act may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within 90 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this act. (2) An action commenced pursuant to subsection (1) may be brought in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred, the county where the complainant resides, or the county where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has his or her principal place of business. (3) As used in subsection (1), "damages" means damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of this act, including reasonable attorney fees. (4) An employee shall show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she or a person acting on his or her behalf was about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 66 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Phinney v. Perlmutter (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 222 Mich. App. 513)“…fter the “occurrence of the alleged violation of this act.” MCL 15.363(1); MSA 17.428(3)(1); Covell v S…”
- Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp. (Michigan Court of Appeals 2011, 292 Mich. App. 626)“…aim was untimely under the WPA’s 90-day limitations period, MCL 15.363. Plaintiff denied that she was engaged…”
- Bruce Millar v. Construction Code Authority (Michigan Supreme Court 2018, 501 Mich. 233)“…ed his claim one day after the 90-day limitations period in MCL 15.363(1) had run. The court also concl…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 15.364Court judgment; order; remedies; awarding costs of litigationIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A court, in rendering a judgment in an action brought pursuant to this act, shall order, as the court considers appropriate, reinstatement of the employee, the payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, actual damages, or any combination of these remedies. A court may also award the complainant all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees and witness fees, if the court determines that the award is appropriate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)“…es, if the court determines that the award is appropriate. [MCL 15.364; MSA 17.428(4).] B The foremost rul…”
- Covell v. Spengler (Michigan Court of Appeals 1985, 141 Mich. App. 76)“…does not bar an action for the other remedies enumerated in MCL 15.364; MSA 17.428(4). MCL 15.364; MSA 17.428(…”
- Theodore Cadwell v. City of Highland Park (Michigan Court of Appeals 2018)“…5.361 et seq., may recover postjudgment attorney fees under MCL 15.364. However, because the trial court faile…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539aDefinitionsIn forcecited in 30 of our articles
As used in sections 539a to 539i: (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access. (2) "Eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers. (3) "Surveillance" means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed. (4) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation or association.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 26 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)“…such unauthorized installation, is guilty of a felony.... MCL 750.539a provides the definitions of phrases use…”
- People v. Stone (Michigan Supreme Court 2001, 463 Mich. 558)“…permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.” MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). In…”
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)“…e Commander Turner, in answering the mobile phone, violated MCL 750.539a et seq.; MSA 28.807(1)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Statutes, and Penalties (2026), Michigan Dashcam Laws: Windshield Rules, Audio Recording, and Legal Use (2026), Michigan Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landlines, Cell Phones, and VoIP (2026)
§ 750.539dInstallation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private placeIn forcecited in 30 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not do either of the following: (a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place. (b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. (3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 24 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lewis v. LeGrow held a bedroom in a private home is a "private place" under MCL 750.539d and that consenting to sex does not consent to being secretly videotaped there, sustaining civil awards. People v. Wilkens affirmed convictions including one under the section for a camera hidden in a shower used by tenants.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)✓A man hid a video camera in his own bedroom and taped three women having sex with him; the court held the bedroom was a private place under 539d and that consenting to sex did not mean consenting to be taped, so the jury verdicts against him stood.
- People v. Wilkens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 267 Mich. App. 728)“…ne count of eavesdropping through installation of a camera, MCL 750.539d. [1] The trial court sentenced defenda…”
- People v. Waltonen (Michigan Court of Appeals 2007, 272 Mich. App. 678)“…drug house, MCL 333.7405(l)(d); one count of eavesdropping, MCL 750.539d; and four counts of engaging the servic…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Doctor Visits (2026), Michigan Laws on Recording in Public: First Amendment Rights and Limits (2026), Michigan School Recording Laws: Rules for Students, Parents, and Teachers (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539c (Eavesdropping)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539d (Surveillance Devices)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 15.362 (Whistleblowers Protection Act)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 15.363 (Whistleblower Civil Action)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022)(law.justia.com)
- NLRB - National Labor Relations Act(nlrb.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539a (Definitions)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 15.364 (Whistleblower Remedies)(legislature.mi.gov).gov