Harassment Cases

HAYNES v NESHEWAT Docket No. 129206. Argued October 3, 2006 (Calendar No. 4). Decided March 28, 2007. Gregory Haynes, an African-American physician, brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Michael J. Neshewat; Oakwood Healthcare, Inc.; and others, alleging, in part, a violation of the public accommodations provision of the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2302, in that the defendants treated him differently than similarly situated physicians because of his race. The trial court, John A. Murphy, J., denied the defendants’ motion for summary disposition with regard to the CRA claims, ruling that the scope of the CRA was broad enough to protect the plaintiff’s privilege to practice medicine without suffering racial discrimination within the hospital, and that the hospital was a place of public accommodation under the CRA. The Court of Appeals granted the defendants’ application for leave to appeal from that order. The Court of Appeals, Talbot, EJ., and Wilder, J. (Griffin, J., dissenting), reversed in an unpublished opinion per curiam, issued June 23, 2005 (Docket No. 249848). The Court of Appeals held that a place of public accommodation exists only through the provision of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, that services and privileges that a facility does not provide to the public do not implicate the public accommodations provision of the CRA, and that a physician’s complaint concerning his or her medical staff privileges at a hospital does not come within the purview of the public accommodations provision of the CRA. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs application for leave to appeal. 474 Mich 1000 (2006). In a unanimous opinion by Justice Kelly, the Supreme Court held: MCL 37.2302 prohibits unlawful discrimination against any individual, not just members of the public. Section 302(a) forbids unlawful discrimination, be it public or private, against any individual in a place of public accommodation and not just against members of the public. The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed and the matter must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. 1. A plaintiff must establish four elements in order to state a claim under § 302(a): (1) discrimination based on a protected characteristic (2) by a person, (3) resulting in the denial of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations (4) of a place of public accommodation. The plaintiff established all four elements. 2. The decision in Kassab v Michigan Basic Prop Ins Ass ’n, 441 Mich 433 (1992), must be overruled to the extent that it can be read to limit the Civil Rights Act inconsistently with the opinion in this case. Kassab was wrongly decided. The CRA implements the equal-protection and antidiscrimination guarantees of the Michigan Constitution, and it would be inconsistent with these guarantees to uphold Kassab’s erroneous interpretation of the CRA. Justice Kelly, joined by Justice Cavanagh, concurring, wrote separately to state that, in interpreting MCL 37.7302, it is also appropriate to consider the remedial nature of the statute, decisions from outside Michigan, Michigan caselaw, and legislative acquiescence in interpreting the statute. All these additional considerations support the outcome reached in this case. Justice Mahkman, joined by Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan and Young, concurring, wrote separately to observe that, while Justice Kelly’s majority opinion reaches a proper result through a proper legal analysis, her concurring opinion reaches the same result through less disciplined means. Reversed and remanded. Civil Rights — Public Accommodations — Individuals. The public accommodations provision of the Civil Rights Act does not limit its prohibition against discrimination to members of the public; the provision prohibits unlawful discrimination against any individual’s full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation (MCL 37.2302[a]). Amos E. Williams, PC. (Joy Amos E. Williams), for the plaintiff. Dykema GossettPLLC (by WilliamM. Thacker and Claire S. Harrison) for the defendants. Amici Curiae: Michael A, Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Genevieve Dwaihy Tusa, Assistant Attorney General, for the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and the Department of Civil Rights. KELLY, J. We granted leave to appeal to determine whether plaintiff has stated a cause of action under MCL 37.2302, the public accommodations provision of the Civil Rights Act (CRA). This case arose when plaintiff, Dr. Gregory Haynes, an African-American physician with staff privileges at Oakwood Hospital-Seaway Center, alleged that defendants treated him differently than similarly situated white physicians on the basis of his race. Plaintiff claims that a result of this different treatment was that he was deprived of the ability and opportunity to fully utilize the medical facilities in violation of the CRA. Defendants moved for summary disposition of the CRA claims, arguing that plaintiffs allegations did not come within the scope of the act. The trial court rejected defendants’ arguments and denied the motion. A divided Court of Appeals reversed and decided that MCL 37.2302(a) addresses discrimination with respect to services made available only to the public. We disagree. We find that MCL 37.2302 prohibits unlawful discrimination against any individual, not just members of the public. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff is a physician licensed in the state of Michigan with specialties in internal medicine and gastroen-terology. In order to care for patients requiring hospitalization, plaintiff has maintained, and still maintains, medical staff membership and clinical privileges at Oakwood Hospital-Seaway Center. Plaintiff is the only African-American staff physician who conducts the majority of his hospital practice at Oakwood. Defendant Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. (Oakwood), is a Michigan nonprofit corporation that does business as Oakwood Hospital-Seaway Center. Defendant Dr. Michael J. Neshewat was the chief of staff at Oakwood. On October 31, 2001, plaintiff filed his four-count complaint against defendants. In the complaint, he asserted claims for violation of the CRA, tortious interference with business relationships and expectancies, negligence, and conspiracy under the CRA. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have treated him differently than similarly situated physicians on the basis of his race. He claims that he has been subjected to excessive charges of unprofessional behavior and administrative hearings designed to discourage him from using the facilities at Oakwood. He also alleges that defendants have attempted to steal his patients and have disparaged his professional competence in an effort to impair his relationships with patients and other physicians. Plaintiff claims that this discriminatory treatment has deprived him of the ability and opportunity to fully and equally utilize the facilities at Oakwood. Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing, among other things, that a hospital is not a place of public accommodation with respect to its decisions concerning staff privileges. The trial court granted defendants’ motion with respect to the claims of negligence and tortious interference with business relationships. Summary disposition was denied on the CRA claims pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). The trial court determined that the CRA’s reach was broad enough to protect plaintiffs privilege to practice medicine without plaintiff suffering racial discrimination within the hospital, a place of public accommodation. Defendants timely applied for, and were granted, interlocutory review. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed. Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued June 23,2005 (Docket No. 249848). The Court of Appeals majority held that a place of public accommodation exists only through the provision of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public. Services and privileges that a facility does not provide to the public, it reasoned, do not implicate the public accommodations provision of the CRA. Therefore, the Court held that a health facility is certainly a place of public accommodation under the CRA in some respects. However, a physician’s complaint concerning his or her private medical staff privileges at a hospital does not come within the purview of the public accommodations provisions. Judge GRIFFIN dissented. He would have held that the denial of a physician’s full and equal enjoyment of hospital staff privileges because of racial discrimination is prohibited by the CRA. We granted plaintiffs application for leave to appeal. 474 Mich 1000 (2006). STANDARD OF REVIEW This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Ostroth v Warren Regency, GP, LLC, 474 Mich 36, 40; 709 NW2d 589 (2006). We also review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Id. Defendant’s motion for summary disposition was made pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). In reviewing a ruling made under this court rule, a court tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs complaint by the pleadings alone. Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274, 277; 681 NW2d 342 (2004). The motion should be granted only if no factual development could possibly justify recovery. Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124, 130; 631 NW2d 308 (2001). ANALYSIS A. INTERPRETING THE STATUTE We are called on to decide whether plaintiff stated a cause of action under the public accommodations section of the CRA. He alleged that defendants’ discriminatory behavior deprived him of the opportunity to fully and equally utilize the Oakwood facilities. Two provisions of the public accommodations section are relevant to our inquiry: MCL 37.2301(a) and MCL 37.2302(a). MCL 37.2301(a) defines the phrase “place of public accommodation” while MCL 37.2302(a) lists the rights persons cannot deny individuals in places of public accommodation on the basis of a protected characteristic. To resolve the issue before us, we must interpret the CRA. The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Ford Motor Co v Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 438; 716 NW2d 247 (2006). If the statute is unambiguous, this Court will apply its language as written. Id. When a statute specifically defines a given term, that definition alone controls. Tryc v Michigan Veterans’ Facility, 451 Mich 129, 136; 545 NW2d 642 (1996). MCL 37.2302 provides in part: Except where permitted by law, a person shall not: (a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status. In order to state a claim under MCL 37.2302(a), plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) discrimination based on a protected characteristic (2) by a person, (3) resulting in the denial of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations (4) of a place of public accommodation. Plaintiff claims that he was discriminated against because of his race. Race is one of the specifically listed protected characteristics. Therefore, this allegation sufficiently establishes the first element. The CRA defines “person” as “an individual, agent, association, corporation, joint apprenticeship committee, joint stock company, labor organization, legal representative, mutual company, partnership, receiver, trust, trustee in bankruptcy, unincorporated organization, the state or a political subdivision of the state or an agency of the state, or any other legal or commercial entity.” MCL 37.2103(g). Both defendant Neshewat and defendant Oakwood fit within this definition. As a result, the second element is also sufficiently established. In order to establish the third element, plaintiff must have been denied the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. The CRA does not define these terms. We give undefined terms their ordinary meanings. Koontz v Ameritech Services, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 312; 645 NW2d 34 (2002). A dictionary may be consulted if necessary. Id. Webster’s defines “privilege” as “a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of persons.” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2001). Plaintiff has staff privileges at Oakwood. These privileges give him the right to use the hospital facilities to treat his patients. Staff privileges are “privileges” because they are a “right” or “benefit” that is enjoyed only by a restricted group of people, in this case doctors. Thus, the full and equal enjoyment of staff privileges is protected by § 302(a). Plaintiff alleged that defendants interfered with his staff privileges and that this denied him the opportunity to fully and equally utilize the facilities. This allegation sufficiently establishes the third element of the statute. The last remaining inquiry is whether Oakwood is a place of public accommodation. MCL 37.2301(a) provides in part: As used in this article: (a) “Place of public accommodation” means a business, or an educational, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, health, or transportation facility, or institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public. Oakwood provides a full range of health services to the public. It is a “business [or] ... health . .. facility.. . whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.” MCL 37.2301(a). Therefore, Oakwood qualifies as a place of public accommodation. See Whitman v Mercy-Memorial Hosp, 128 Mich App 155; 339 NW2d 730 (1983). As a result, all four elements of the statute are sufficiently established and plaintiff has stated a cause of action under the CRA. B. MCL 37.2302(a) PROTECTS INDIVIDUALS, NOT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Defendants argue, and the Court of Appeals majority agreed, that plaintiff states a claim under § 302(a) only if he alleges that he was deprived of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations that were made available to the public. According to defendants, even if there has been an interference with plaintiffs ability to practice as a physician at Oakwood, plaintiff has not stated a cause of action. They reason that the practice of medicine is not a privilege offered to the public. We reject this interpretation because it is contrary to the language of the statute. MCL 37.2302(a) protects the rights of individuals. Individuals, not members of the public, are protected from the denial of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. Nowhere within the wording of § 302(a) is it required that the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations be offered to the public. We will not read into the statute a limitation that is not there. We hold that MCL 37.2302(a) forbids unlawful discrimination against any individual in a place of public accommodation, not just against members of the public. C. KASSAB The defendants argue that this case is controlled by our decision in Kassab v Michigan Basic Prop Ins Ass’n, 441 Mich 433; 491 NW2d 545 (1992). In Kassab, this Court decided that the CRA did not provide a remedy for discriminatory processing of insurance claims. Id. at 442. The Court concluded that, even if the insurance company was a “ ‘[pjlace of public accommodation,’ ” the CRA did not extend beyond “ ‘services . . . made available to the public’ ” and so did not provide a cause of action to Mr. Kassab. Id. at 440-441. It held that, as long as the company provided access to services, the CRA did not prevent it from discriminating in providing full and equal enjoyment of those services. Id. at 441. We conclude that the Court in Kassab erred by reading nonexistent limitations into the statute. To the extent that Kassab can be read to limit the CRA inconsistently with our holding today, it is overruled. We are mindful of the doctrine of stare decisis and do not take lightly our decision to overrule Kassab. In Robinson v Detroit, we discussed stare decisis and the factors to be considered when deciding whether to overrule a prior decision. When evaluating the factors, the first question we ask is whether the earlier decision was wrongly decided. Id. at 464. As we discussed previously, Kassab was wrongly decided. The Court erred by reading a nonexistent limitation into the statute. Finding that a prior decision was wrongly decided is not the end of our inquiry. We must also weigh the effects of overruling the decision. Id. at 466. This consideration involves a review of whether the decision “defies ‘practical workability,’ whether reliance interests would work an undue hardship, and whether changes in the law or facts no longer justify the questioned decision.” Id. at 464. We find that there are no factors that counsel against overruling Kassab. Kassab held that the CRA does not provide a cause of action for discriminatory processing of insurance claims. The fact that some parties may rely on a decision to protect them from civil liability for discriminatory behavior is not a reason to uphold an erroneous decision. This is especially true when the prior decision involves the interpretation of the CRA. The CRA implements the equal protection and antidis-crimination guarantees of the Michigan Constitution. It would be inconsistent with these constitutional guarantees to uphold an erroneous interpretation of the CRA. conclusion The public accommodations provision of the CRA, MCL 37.2302, does not limit its prohibition against discrimination to members of the public. Rather, § 302(a) prohibits unlawful discrimination against any individual’s full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation. Plaintiff is a physician with staff and clinical privileges at Oakwood. By alleging that defendants’ discriminatory behavior deprived him of the opportunity to fully utilize the Oakwood medical facilities, plaintiff stated a cause of action under the CRA. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Taylor, C.J., and Cavanagh, Weaver, Corrigan, YOUNG, and MArkMAN, JJ., concurred with KELLY, J. Unless it is necessary to distinguish between the two, both OakwoodSeaway Center and Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., will be referenced as Oakwood. The complaint named as defendants Oakwood Healthcare, Inc.; Dr. Michael Neshewat; Dr. Robert Murray; and Brian Peltz. Before the filing of defendants’ motion for summary disposition, Mr. Peltz and Dr. Murray were dismissed from the action by stipulation of the parties. Dr. Neshewat faded to appear or plead and a default judgment was entered against him. Defendants opposed plaintiffs motion for entry of a default judgment, thereby preserving the right to challenge the trial court’s decision granting the default judgment. Plaintiffs medical practice is largely dependent on referrals by patients and other physicians. Plaintiff claims that defendant Neshewat intimidated other physicians in an attempt to cause them to stop referring patients to him. Plain

ELEZOVIC v FORD MOTOR COMPANY Docket No. 267747. Submitted August 2, 2006, at Lansing. Decided January 25, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Leave to appeal sought. Lula and Joseph Elezovic brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against the Ford Motor Company and Daniel E Bennett under the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq., seeking damages for alleged sexual harassment resulting from a hostile work environment. The plaintiffs alleged that Bennett, a supervisor at the Ford plant where Lula Elezovic worked, exposed himself to her, requested oral sex, and repeatedly engaged in other sexually offensive conduct. The trial court, Kathleen I. Macdonald, J., granted directed verdicts in favor of the defendants. The Court of Appeals, JANSEN, EJ, and Neff, J. (Kelly, J., concurring), affirmed, holding that it was bound to follow the rule in Jager v Nationwide Truck Brokers, Inc, 252 Mich App 464 (2002), that a supervisor engaging in activity prohibited by the CRA may not be held individually liable for violating a plaintiffs civil rights. 259 Mich App 187 (2003). The Court stated that, were it not bound by MCR 7.215(J) to follow Jager, it would have reached the opposite result. On appeal, the Supreme Court overruled Jager to hold that an agent of an employer may be held individually liable under the CRA, and remanded this case to the trial court for further proceedings regarding Bennett. 472 Mich 408 (2005). On remand, the trial court granted Bennett’s motion for summary disposition on the ground that he was not functioning as an agent of Ford under the CRA when he committed the claimed acts of sexual harassment. Lula Elezovic appealed, and Bennett cross-appealed by delayed leave granted, challenging the trial court’s denial of his renewed pretrial motion for summary disposition of the hostile work environment claim on its merits. The Court of Appeals held-. 1. The trial court erred in concluding that, because Ford had not given Bennett the authority to create a sexually hostile work environment, he was not functioning as an agent of Ford when he allegedly committed the unlawful acts of discrimination. Under the CRA, the term “employer” includes an agent of the employing entity. Agents are persons to whom the employing agency delegates supervisory power and authority over subordinates. An agent can be held directly and individually hable for engaging in discriminatory behavior in violation of the CEA while acting as the victim’s employer. This conclusion is consistent with the Legislature’s intent to eradicate the evil of sexual discrimination in the workplace, with prevailing law related to torts committed by agents, and with the rule that remedial statutes must be construed liberally to suppress the evil and advance the remedy. The narrower construction urged by the dissent would effectively insulate the tortfeasor agent from personal accountabihty for creating the very conditions that the CRA was enacted to prevent. Contrary to the dissent’s contention, the common-law agency principles on which courts have relied to determine whether to hold employers hable for harassment that their employees committed are not applicable here, because this case involves direct, not vicarious, liability. Therefore, if Elezovic can establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment sexual harassment against Bennett, absent the respondeat superior requirement, she may be entitled to damages for which Bennett is individually hable. 2. The trial court did not err in denying Bennett’s motion for summary disposition on the ground that Elezovic’s allegations of hostile work environment sexual harassment were insufficient as a matter of law. Elezovic presented evidence that, while Bennett was her supervisor, he repeatedly engaged in sexual conduct in her presence that a reasonable person would conclude was hostile, intimidating, or offensive. Although Elezovic did not supply specific dates and times in connection with her allegations, she has nonetheless established a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Bennett subjected her to a hostile work environment. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Talbot, J., dissenting, stated that because the undisputed facts reflect that, under common-law agency principles, Bennett’s acts of sexual harassment occurred outside the scope of his authority as a Ford superintendent and violated Ford’s antidiscrimination policy, Bennett was not acting as Ford’s agent when he committed the alleged acts of sexual harassment, and he therefore does not meet the definition of an “employer” under the CRA. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted Bennett summary disposition with respect to Elezovic’s CRA claim. 1. Civil Rights — Civil Rights Act - Employees — Agents — Individual Liability. An agent of an employer may be held individually hable under the Civil Rights Act for sexually harassing an employee in the workplace (MCL 37.2101 et seq.). 2. Civil Rights — Civil Rights Act — Employees — Agents — Definition. An agent of an employer, for purposes of the Civil Rights Act, is a person to whom an employing entity has delegated supervisory power and authority to act on its behalf (MCL 37.2101 et seq). 3. Civil Rights — Civil Rights Act — Employees — Agents — Scope of Authority. An agent of an employer may be held individually hable for violating the Civil Rights Act in the workplace regardless of whether the underlying acts were outside the scope of the agent’s authority because an action for individual liability does not seek to hold the principal hable for the agent’s acts (MCL 37.2101 et seq). Edwards & Jennings, EC. (by Alice B. Jennings), for Lula Elezovic. Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Felton, F.L.C. (by Julia Turner Baumhart and Elizabeth Hardy), for Daniel Bennett. Before: CAVANAGH, EJ., and SMOLENSK! and TALBOT, JJ. CAVANAGH, EJ. This appeal follows the remand of this matter to the circuit court by our Supreme Court for consideration of plaintiff Lula Elezovic’s sexual harassment claim premised on a hostile work environment theory, MCL 37.2103(i)(iii), against her former supervisor, defendant Daniel Bennett, only. On remand, the circuit court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the ground that, under the Michigan Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq., defendant was not functioning as an “agent” of the Ford Motor Company when he committed the charged acts of sexual harassment. Elaintiff appeals this decision. Defendant cross-appeals by delayed leave granted, challenging the trial court’s denial of his renewed pretrial motion for summary disposition of plaintiffs hostile work environment claim on its merits. Because the facts related to this matter have been extensively detailed in previous opinions, we reiterate only the salient facts here. See Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 472 Mich 408, 411-418; 697 NW2d 851 (2005); Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 259 Mich App 187, 190-191; 673 NW2d 776 (2003). Plaintiff was an hourly production worker at Ford’s Wixom assembly plant when she was allegedly sexually harassed by defendant, her supervisor. She brought sexual harassment claims against both Ford and defendant. Following a three-week jury trial, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict, holding that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment against either Ford or defendant. On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions. With regard to defendant, this Court relied on the then-recent case of Jager v Nationwide Truck Brokers, Inc, 252 Mich App 464, 485; 652 NW2d 503 (2002), which held that a supervisor may not be held individually liable for violating the CRA. Elezovic, 259 Mich App at 197, 202. Our Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, and affirmed with regard to the issue of Ford’s liability. Elezovic, 472 Mich at 430. However, the Court overruled the Jager holding, concluding that an agent who sexually harasses an employee in the workplace can be held individually liable under the CRA. Id. at 411. The Court remanded the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings regarding defendant. Id. at 431. As noted above, on remand, the circuit court granted defendant’s renewed motion for summary disposition on the ground that defendant was not functioning as an “agent” of Ford when he committed the charged acts of sexual harassment. This appeal followed. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding that defendant was not functioning as an “agent” of Ford under the CRA when he committed the charged acts of sexual harassment and, thus, could not be held individually liable. We agree. This Court reviews de novo the ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618, 621; 689 NW2d 506 (2004). Although the trial court did not specify under which subrule of MCR 2.116(C) it found summary disposition appropriate, because the court looked beyond the pleadings, it appears that the decision was premised on MCR 2.116(0(10). MCR 2.116(0(10) tests the factual support of a claim and requires this Court to consider the pleadings, admissions, affidavits, and other relevant documentary evidence of record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact warranting a trial exists. Walsh, supra. This Court also reviews de novo issues of statutory interpretation. Bloomfield Twp v Oakland Co Clerk, 253 Mich App 1, 9; 654 NW2d 610 (2002). Our purpose in reviewing questions of statutory construction is to discern and give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich 192, 196; 694 NW2d 544 (2005). We begin our analysis by examining the plain language of the statute. If the language is unambiguous, no judicial construction is required or permitted and the statute must be enforced as written. Id., quoting People v Morey, 461 Mich 325, 330; 603 NW2d 250 (1999). The undefined words of a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, which may be ascertained by looking at dictionary definitions. Koontz v Ameritech Services, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 312; 645 NW2d 34 (2002). The CRA is remedial and thus must be “liberally construed to suppress the evil and advance the remedy.” Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26, 34; 427 NW2d 488 (1988). One of the purposes of the CRA, specifically MCL 37.2202, is to eradicate particular forms of discrimination in the workplace. See Champion v Nation Wide Security, Inc, 450 Mich 702, 713; 545 NW2d 596 (1996). “MCL 37.2202 forbids any employer from engaging in acts of discrimination that are prohibited by the CRA.” McClements v Ford Motor Co, 473 Mich 373, 386; 702 NW2d 166, amended 474 Mich 1201 (2005) (emphasis in original). One form of discrimination the CRA prohibits is discrimination based on sex. MCL 37.2202(1). Thus, an employer shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, which includes sexual harassment. MCL 37.2202(l)(a); MCL 37.2103®. The CRA is the exclusive remedy for a claim based on sexual harassment. McClements, supra at 383. There are two categories of sexual harassment: (1) quid pro quo and (2) hostile work environment. See Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297, 310-311; 614 NW2d 910 (2000). At issue in this case is the latter type, hostile work environment sexual harassment, which is defined to include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature under the following conditions: (Hi) The conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s employment... or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment. .. environment. [MCL 37.2103(i).] When the hostile work environment is created by the actions of coworkers and other coemployees, the alleged victim seeking a remedy under the CRA must file a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment against her employer on a vicarious liability theory. See, e.g., Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 791-792; 685 NW2d 391 (2004). Thus, to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment sexual harassment, the plaintiff employee must prove (1) that she belonged to a protected group; (2) that she was subjected to communication or conduct on the basis of sex; (3) that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct or communication; (4) that the unwelcome sexual conduct or communication was intended to or in fact did substantially interfere with her employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) respondeat superior. See Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 382-383; 501 NW2d 155 (1993). Respondeat superior liability exists when an employer has adequate notice of the harassment and fails to take appropriate corrective action. See Chambers, supra at 318-319. However, “if an employer is accused of sexual harassment, then the respondeat superior inquiry is unnecessary because holding an employer liable for personal actions is not unfair.” Radtke, supra at 397 (emphasis in original). Thus, when the hostile work environment is created by the actions of the employer, the alleged victim seeking a remedy under the CRA may file such a claim against her employer premised on a direct theory of liability. Similarly, this case involves not vicarious liability but the individual liability of the alleged sexual harasser, who is a purported “agent” of the employing entity, not a coworker. In this case, defendant argued in the trial court on remand that plaintiffs case had to be summarily dismissed because defendant was never vested with authority to create a sexually hostile work environment; i.e., defendant “was not Ford’s agent for purposes of creating a sexually hostile work environment.” The trial court agreed with defendant, granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the ground that defendant was not functioning as an agent at the time he committed the alleged unlawful acts of discrimination. We conclude that both defendant and the trial court misconstrued the applicable legal principles of agency. This unjust and unreasonable result permits an agent to pursue and accomplish his illegal objective by using his position and power, but immunizes him from liability because he was not supposed to do that. In other words, in this case, defendant could not be held personally liable for violating the purported victim’s civil rights because Ford did not tell him to sexually harass her. We do not believe that the Legislature intended this incongruous result. Article 2 of the CRA defines an “employer” as “a person who has 1 or more employees, and includes an agent of that person.” MCL 37.2201(a). Our Supreme Court, in this case, declared that an agent of an employer is considered an “employer” for purposes of the CRA, holding: [W]hen a statute says “employer” means “a person who has 1 or more employees, and includes an agent of that person,” it must, if the words are going to be read sensibly, mean that the Legislature intended to make the agent tantamount to the employer so that the agent unmistakably is also subject to suit along with the employer. (Emphasis added.) Indeed, when we said in Chambers [v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297, 320; 614 NW2d 910 (2000)], that categorizing a given pattern of misconduct allows the Court “to determine whether the sexual harasser’s employer, in addition to the sexual harasser himself, is to be held responsible for the misconduct,” we believe we said as much. (Emphasis in original.) Accordingly, we reject the argument that including “agent” within the definition of “employer” serves only to provide vicarious liability for the agent’s employer and we conclude that it also serves to create individual liability for an employer’s agent. [Elezovic, 472 Mich at 420.] The Court also specifically held: Because we find that (1) inclusion of an “agent” within the definition of the word “employer” is not limited to establishing vicarious liability for the agent’s employer, but in fact means agents are considered employers, (2) federal decisions construing Title VII should not be followed because it would lead to a result contrary to the text of our CRA, and (3) the amendment history of the CRA does not preclude a finding of individual liability, we conclude that liability under our CRA applies to an agent who sexually harasses an employee in the workplace. [Id. at 426.] Again, our Supreme Court reiterated in its conclusion that “[b]ecause employers can be held liable under the CRA, and because agents are considered employers, agents can be held liable, as individuals, under the CRA.” Id. at 431. The clear result of the Supreme Court’s conclusion is that if the purported harasser is an agent of the employing entity, the harasser is treated as if he is the employer for purposes of the CRA. In other words, the harasser may be held directly and individually liable if he engaged in discriminatory behavior in violation of the CRA while acting in his capacity as the victim’s employer. Therefore, a respondeat superior analysis is not necessary with respect to the agent’s direct and individual liability because this is not a claim of vicarious liability. See Chambers, supra at 311; Radtke, supra. Next, we must determine when one is considered an “agent” and, thus, an employer under the CRA. The CRA does not define the term “agent,” so we may turn to a dictionary for guidance on its plain and ordinary meaning. See Koontz, supra. An agent is “a person or business authorized to act on another’s behalf” and “a person or thing that acts or has the power to act.” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997). And, if “agent” is considered a legal term, its meaning is the same: “[o]ne who is authorized to act for or in place of another.” Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed). These definitions are consistent with general agency principles, Stephenson v Golden (On Rehearing), 279 Mich 710, 734-735; 276 NW 849 (1937), and the fact that “most employers are corporate entities that cannot function without delegating supervisory power.” Champion, supra at 713. We conclude that it is through this delegation of general supervisory power and authority that one becomes an “agent” of the employing entity and, thus, an employer within the context of the CRA. Specifically, persons to whom an employing entity delegates supervisory power and authority to act on its behalf are “agents,” as distinguished from coemployees, subordinates, or coworkers who do not have supervisory powers or authority, for purposes of the CRA. If this agent is also the alleged sexual harasser, the agent is considered an employer under the CRA and may be directly and individually liable for this tort against the victim, whether or not the employing entity is liable. Again, MCL 37.2202 prohibits any employer from engaging in acts of discrimination that are prohibited by the CRA. McClements, supra at 386. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the trial court’s holding, and the dissent in this case, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to establish that a defendant was “functioning as an agent” when he committed the charged specific acts of sexual harassment charged. Almost invariably, the harasser is never acting within the scope of his agency when he breaks the law by sexually harassing a subordinate. As our Supreme Court has noted, “an employer rarely authorizes an agent to break the law or otherwise behave improperly. . . .” Champion, supra at 712 n 7. The issue is not whether the harassing acts were within the scope of the agent’s authority — the plaintiff is not attempting to hold the principal liable for the agent’s acts. The issue is whether the harasser was an agent, one vested with supervisory power and authority, at the time the harassing acts were being perpetrated against the victim; if so, the harasser is considered an employer for purposes of the CRA. We disagree with the dissent’