## Facts

- John and Terry Hoffius owned and rented residential property in Jackson, Michigan.
- Kristal McCready and Keith Kerr sought to rent after responding to an advertisement; the landlords refused after learning they were unmarried but intended to live together.
- Rose Baiz and Peter Perusse later sought to rent the same property; the landlords refused after learning they were unmarried and planned to live together, citing religious objections to unmarried cohabitation.
- The plaintiffs filed complaints with a local fair housing commission; testers also contacted the landlords.
- Testers reported the landlords sometimes did not ask marital status, but refused to allow unmarried couples to inspect units and stated the units were available only to married couples and they usually did not rent to unmarried couples.
- Plaintiffs filed civil actions alleging housing discrimination under the Michigan Civil Rights Act (CRA) based on marital status.
- The circuit court granted summary disposition for the landlords; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether refusing to rent to unmarried couples intending to cohabit constitutes discrimination “because of … marital status” under the CRA’s housing provisions.
2. Whether the landlords’ federal or state constitutional religious-freedom rights provide a defense to liability under the CRA.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court (1998 merits opinion) reversed the court of appeals.
- The Court held the landlords discriminated against the plaintiffs on the basis of marital status in violation of the CRA.
- The Court held the landlords’ religious-freedom rights did not supersede the statutory civil-rights protections in housing.
- The Court directed the circuit court to enter summary disposition for the plaintiffs.
- The 1998 opinion was later vacated and the matter remanded by a 1999 order.

## Legal Principles

- Under the CRA, a landlord’s policy of renting only to married couples, or refusing rentals because applicants are unmarried, constitutes marital-status discrimination.
- A claimed moral or religious objection to unmarried cohabitation does not avoid liability when the rental decision turns on whether applicants are married or unmarried.
- Neutral, generally applicable antidiscrimination statutes may be enforced against religious objectors when the law regulates conduct in the marketplace and any burden on religious practice is incidental.
- Vacatur eliminates the binding precedential effect of the vacated merits opinion, even if the reasoning remains informative.

## Conclusion

The Court’s 1998 decision treated a refusal to rent to unmarried cohabiting couples as prohibited marital-status discrimination under the CRA and rejected a religious-freedom defense, ordering judgment for the tenants; the ruling was later vacated and remanded in 1999, removing its precedential force.


McCready v. Hoffius, 586 N.W.2d 723 (Mich. 1998), vacated & remanded, 593 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 1999)