(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I would reverse the district court. Pamela Krueger has brought a viable claim for discrimination under Minn.Stat. § 363A.17 (2008) and is entitled to proceed with that claim. I conclude, therefore, that the district court erred when it dismissed Krueger’s claim by granting Ze-man Construction Company’s Rule 12 motion to dismiss.
Krueger alleges in her complaint that Zeman discriminated against her on the basis of sex during the performance of the contract between Diamond Dust Contracting, LLC, and Zeman. Zeman responded to the complaint and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
Krueger alleges that she is the sole owner-member and operator of Diamond Dust and that she was working at the construction site for the Eagles Landing Condominiums in Wabasha. Zeman was the general contractor on the Eagles Landing project. Krueger’s firm, Diamond Dust, which was also her employer, was a subcontractor for sheetrocking and drywall work on the project. Krueger claims that while working at the job site she was sexually harassed by the two job supervisors employed by Zeman and that she encountered a sexually abusive, hostile, and threatening working environment.
Krueger alleges the specifics of a long list of discriminatory conduct. This conduct included: (1) referring to Krueger as a “c-t” and “f- — g b — h,” (2) directing profanity and vulgar gestures toward her family, (3) telling her that cleaning rather than drywalling was the appropriate work for her, (4) following her to the bathroom and leaning on the bathroom door while she was inside, (5) tracking the number of times she used the bathroom, (6) subjecting her to physical intimidation, (7) equipping condominium units with exposed urinals that male construction workers used while she worked in the immediate area, (8) suggesting that she maybe wanted a urinal painted pink for her use, (9) ordering her to get on her hands and knees to clean up drywall material that had fallen on the protective floor covering while drywall work was in progress, and (10) laughing at her when she began to cry at the humiliation caused by Zeman’s employees. Male supervisors of other subcontractors were not subjected to similar conduct. Ze-man, as the general contractor, was informed of these incidents on several occasions but did not take any corrective or remedial action. All of this conduct allegedly occurred at a job site where Krueger *867was present as a worker fulfilling a contract between Diamond Dust and Zeman.
Krueger brought a discrimination claim under the MHRA. The district court dismissed Krueger’s action on a Rule 12 motion by Zeman, concluding that Krueger lacked standing to pursue her business discrimination claim because she was not a party to a contract with Zeman. A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed. Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 758 N.W.2d 881, 889-90 (Minn.App.2008). Krueger appealed to our court for relief.
Because Krueger is appealing her claim’s dismissal pursuant to a Rule 12 motion, we assume the truth of the allegations set forth in her pleadings. Therefore, the only issue before us on this appeal is whether Krueger has stated a claim under Minn.Stat. §§ 363A.17 and 363A.28 (2008).
Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo. Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Group, Inc., 751 N.W.2d 558, 566 (Minn.2008). The goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the legislature’s intent. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008). When the plain meaning of a statute is clear, a court must apply its plain language. Id.
The purpose of the MHRA is to “secure for persons in this state, freedom from discrimination.” Minn.Stat. § 363A.02, subd. 1(a) (2008). The language of the Act specifically directs us to construe the Act broadly by providing that the MHRA “shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purposes thereof.” Minn. Stat. § 363A.04 (2008). With these principles of construction in mind, I turn to an analysis of the relevant provisions of the MHRA.
The MHRA provides that:
It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person engaged in a trade, or business or in the provision of a service ... (3) to discriminate in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract because of a person’s race, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, or disability, unless the alleged refusal or discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose.
Minn.Stat. § 363A.17(3). By its plain language section 363A.17(3) forbids discrimination against a person in the performance of a contract on the basis of sex. Here, it is uncontested that Krueger alleged sufficient discrimination on the basis of sex by Zeman during the performance of a contract to which Zeman was a party. Section 363A.17(3) does not require more.
The point on which the majority and I disagree is whether Minn.Stat. § 363A.17(3) should be interpreted as requiring a contractual relationship between the discriminator and the person suffering from discrimination. Because the MHRA never mentions a contractual-relationship requirement, I would not impose such a requirement.
Section 363A.28 contains the provisions of the MHRA that tell us who may make a claim for discrimination. To have standing to pursue a discrimination claim under the MHRA, “the act of discrimination itself constitutes sufficient injury for the law to provide a remedy, in the absence of statutory language requiring more.” Potter v. LaSalle Court Sports & Health Club, 384 N.W.2d 873, 875 (Minn.1986) (citation omitted) (internal quotation, marks omitted). An “aggrieved” person may bring a claim under the MHRA when she has been injured by unlawful discrimination. Minn. Stat. § 363A.28. The specific question for us to consider is whether the MHRA forbids the type of discrimination Krueger alleges.
The majority looks at the use of the words “terms” and “conditions” and the phrase “performance of the contract” in section 363A. 17(3) and quickly concludes *868that a contractual relationship with the discriminating entity is required for an injured person to bring a claim for business discrimination under the MHRA. This analysis is fundamentally flawed. Section 363A.17(3) addresses only the perpetrator of the discrimination rather than the victim. The section makes it unlawful “to discriminate in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract.” Minn.Stat. § 363A.17(3). I agree with the majority that the inclusion of “terms,” “conditions,” and “performance of the contract” in section 363A.17(3) allows claims of discrimination only against a party to a contract. But the use of “terms,” “conditions,” and “performance” indicates only when it is unlawful for a person to discriminate. Those words tell us nothing about the victim of the discrimination. They do not place a limit on who may be “aggrieved” by such conduct. Therefore, I conclude that the use of these words does not place a limit on who may bring a claim for discrimination under the section.
For the same reason, the majority’s definition of the term “performance” is unavailing. The majority asserts that only a party to the contract can perform a contract, and therefore section 363A.17(3) requires a contractual relationship with the discriminating entity. But again, the plain language of section 363A.17(3) only describes what constitutes unlawful conduct; it does not address who may pursue a claim for injury related to such conduct. By making the conduct unlawful, the MHRA creates a right for a person to be free from discrimination during the performance of a contract. A person is aggrieved by such discrimination when she is injured by it. The plain language of the MHRA places no further limits, and we should not seek to artificially impose them, especially given the legislature’s mandate to construe the MHRA liberally.
Counter to this mandate, the majority reaches its construction of section 363A.17 because “[tjhere is no indication that the legislature intended such an expansive reading of the statute.” But the majority approaches its construction of this section backwards. We are to interpret the MHRA liberally to affect its purpose of protecting the people of this state from discrimination. So unless there is a clear indication that the legislature intended a cause of action as narrow as the one the majority creates, we should give effect to the broad, plain language of section 363A.17 and allow Krueger to pursue her claim.1
The majority’s limited statutory construction is too narrow and appears to provide a veneer for the majority’s true concern with my interpretation of section 363A.17 — that my interpretation would create some sort of slippery slope for business discrimination claims under the MHRA. But Krueger’s claim does not stand on a slope, much less a slippery one. Rather, she alleges that while working to fulfill a construction contract, she was discriminated against by one of the parties to that contract. Without that contract, Krueger, as Diamond Dust’s employee, would not have been on the job site, and Zeman would not have had the opportunity to discriminate against her. Indeed, the vast majority of workers on a job site are not in a direct contractual relationship with the general contractor, but may well *869be subject to discrimination. The majority minimizes this reality. Discrimination occurs on a personal level to real people based on personal traits or statuses, and companies may only perform contracts through the work of human beings — persons under the statute.
Further, though the majority correctly states that section 1981 of the federal statutes is significantly different from Minn. Stat. § 363A.17, the majority appears to have unnecessarily grafted the United States Supreme Court’s policy analysis onto the Minnesota statute. The majority declines to allow Krueger’s claim to continue because to do so would be to read section 363A.17 “in a peculiarly bounded” way. Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 476, 126 S.Ct. 1246, 163 L.Ed.2d 1069 (2006) (emphasis omitted). But it is the majority’s stark boundary that is peculiar. Although the MHRA defines “person” to include entities, entities do not have a race, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, or disability. See Minn.Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 30 (2008) (defining “person”). Only human persons have these characteristics. Given the reality of a construction site, the majority would preserve claims for entities but deny them to human beings.
The legislature has specifically directed us to interpret the MHRA liberally to accomplish its purpose. Minn.Stat. § 363A.04. The purpose of the MHRA is to secure freedom from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, public services, and education. Minn.Stat. § 363A.02, subd. 1(a). The legislature recognized that discrimination “threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state and menaces the institutions and foundations of democracy.” Id., subd. 1(b). Imposing a contractual-relationship requirement creates a gap in the law such that some persons are subject to discrimination in the workplace without a remedy against the discriminating parties and some businesses are able to discriminate with impunity. If her allegations are true, Krueger has a right as a person who has been discriminated against to seek redress against the discriminating party. Her ability to work and perform under the contract is contingent on her ability to work free from discrimination. She should be allowed to go forward with her claim; therefore, I would reverse the district court and allow her to do so.
. The majority asserts in a footnote that "[t]he legislature's command to broadly construe the [MHRA] does not naturally force us to conclude that the statute provides a cause of action to all persons.” I agree. It is the plain language of section 363A.17 that should force us to recognize Krueger’s claim. The legislature's mandate for broad construction merely reinforces what should be clear from the language in the statute.