Macomb — Ch. 13 Housing § 13-135
Exceptions
Operative Text
(a) Any practice or act of discrimination which would otherwise be prohibited by this article shall not be deemed unlawful if it can be established that such practice or act can be justified on the basis of being reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. However, a business necessity exception shall not be justified by the factors of increased cost to business, business efficiency, the comparative or stereotypical characteristics of one group as opposed to another or the preferences of coworkers, the employer's customers or any other person. (b) Nothing contained in the provisions of this article shall be construed to bar any religious or political organization from giving preference to persons of the same political or religious persuasion in the conducting of the organization's activities. (c) Nothing contained in the provisions of this article shall be considered to be discriminatory on the basis of age if the act occurs with respect to a person under the age of 18 years.
Macomb Ch. 13 Housing § 13-135 carves out three narrow exceptions to the article's general anti-discrimination rules. First, a practice that would otherwise be prohibited may be permissible if it is genuinely necessary for normal business operations — but cost savings, efficiency, group stereotypes, or the preferences of coworkers or customers cannot justify that exception. Second, religious and political organizations are permitted to favor members of their own faith or political affiliation when conducting their own activities. Third, differential treatment based on age is not considered discriminatory under this article when it applies to individuals under 18 years old.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Property owners and managers operating in Macomb should understand that § 13-135 provides only a tightly bounded 'business necessity' defense — compliant operators can demonstrate that a challenged practice is essential to normal operations, but they cannot rely on cost, efficiency, stereotypes, or third-party preferences to support that defense. Religious or political organizations that own or manage housing as part of their organizational activities may lawfully give preference to members of the same faith or political affiliation under this section. Operators should also note that age-related distinctions affecting residents or applicants under 18 are treated differently under § 13-135 and are not automatically classified as age discrimination under this article.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Under Macomb Ch. 13 Housing § 13-135, tenants should be aware that a landlord or housing provider claiming a 'business necessity' exception to anti-discrimination rules faces significant limitations — arguments based on cost, efficiency, or group stereotypes are explicitly excluded as valid justifications under this provision. If a housing provider is a religious or political organization, § 13-135 does allow that organization to prefer members of the same affiliation, which may affect how a discrimination claim is evaluated in that context. Tenants who believe a claimed exception has been applied improperly may consider raising the issue as a defense in a housing proceeding, filing a complaint with the appropriate local authority, or reaching out to a tenant-rights organization for general information about their options.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated November 10, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.