(dissenting). I dissent from the majority’s decision to overrule Champion v Nation Wide Security, Inc, 450 Mich 702; 545 NW2d 596 (1996). I fully agree with and join parts I, II, iy and V of Justice CAVANAGH’s dissenting opinion. It is my strong belief that Champion, a unanimous decision of this Court,1 was not only correctly decided, but served to protect the rights of victims of discrimination. Because the majority overrules correctly decided precedent, no stare decisis analysis is necessary. The majority’s analysis and *60conclusions are fundamentally flawed, and today’s decision significantly undermines the “legislative intent that employers, not the victims of sexual harassment, bear the costs of remedying and eradicating discrimination.” Champion, 450 Mich at 714. Finally, for the reasons given in Justice CAVANAGH’s thoughtful and well-reasoned dissenting opinion, the majority’s decision is contrary to the rule of law and results in the dismantling of the Michigan Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. Accordingly, I dissent.
The concurring justices joined the analysis in full. See Champion, 450 Mich at 714 (Boyle, J., concurring).