Haynes v. Neshewat
| Decision Date | 28 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 129206 (Calendar No. 4). |
| Citation | 477 Mich. 29,729 N.W.2d 488 |
| Parties | Gregory HAYNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. NESHEWAT, Robert J. Murray, and Brian Peltz, Defendants, and Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. and Oakwood Hospital-Seaway Center, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Amos E. Williams, P.C. (by Amos E. Williams), Detroit, for the plaintiff.
Dykema Gossett, P.L.L.C. (by Willaim M. Thacker and Claire S. Harrison), Ann Arbor, for the defendants.
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Genevieve Dwaihy Tusa, Assistant Attorney General, Detroit, for the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and the Department of Civil Rights, amici curiae.
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 plaintiff's 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.
Plaintiff is a physician licensed in the state of Michigan with specialties in internal medicine and gastroenterology. 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),1 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.2 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.3
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.4 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 plaintiff's 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), 2005 WL 1489599. 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 plaintiff's application for leave to appeal. 474 Mich. 1000, 708 N.W.2d 111 (2006).
This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Ostroth v. Warren Regency, GP, LLC, 474 Mich. 36, 40, 709 N.W.2d 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).5 In reviewing a ruling made under this court rule, a court tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint by the pleadings alone. Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 470 Mich. 274, 277, 681 N.W.2d 342 (2004). The motion should be granted only if no factual development could possibly justify recovery. Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124, 130, 631 N.W.2d 308 (2001).
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 N.W.2d 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 N.W.2d 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 N.W.2d 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,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Auto Club Group, Docket No. 130917.
......109, 115, 715 N.W.2d 28 (2006). This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo. Haynes v. Neshewat, 477 Mich. 29, 34, 729 N.W.2d 488 (2007). The goal of statutory interpretation is to effectuate the Legislature's intent as demonstrated ......
-
Petersen v. Magna Corp., No. 136542
...The Chief Justice has previously observed that, "I find frequent ambiguity in statutory language." Haynes v Neshewat, 477 Mich 29, 40; 729 NW2d 488 (2007) (Kelly, J., concurring).142 This is not surprising. For once a statute orcontract has been deemed "ambiguous," this Court "may go beyond......
-
Carter v. Shearer
...... Haynes v. Neshewat , 477 Mich. 29, 35, 729 N.W. 2d 488 (2007). Defendants LVNA and Vitosevic contend that Plaintiff has failed to properly plead that she ......
-
Donkers v. Kovach
......170, 174, 730 N.W.2d 722 (2007). "The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Haynes v. Neshewat, 477 Mich. 29, 35, 729 N.W.2d 488 (2007). When interpreting a statute, the Court must first examine the language of the statute itself. ......
-
DICTIONARY DIVING IN THE COURTS: A SHAKY GRAB FOR ORDINARY MEANING.
...Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. (1.) BRIAN G. SLOCUM, ORDINARY MEANING 23 (2016); see also Hayes v. Neshewat, 729 N.W.2d 488, 500 (Mich. 2007) (Markman, J., concurring) (commending dictionaries as "an essential tool in the interpretive (2.) See John Calhoun, Meas......