is a part of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Section 4-21-102, the definition provision of the Human Rights Act, expressly defines the term “person” as including a government agency. Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-102(14) (1998). The term “government agency” has been interpreted to include a State university. Roberson v. Univ. of Tenn., 912 S.W.2d 746, 747-48 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995). Thus, since a State university is considered a “person” under the Human Rights Act, and section 4-21-701 expressly grants a right of action against such a “person” for malicious harassment, we conclude that the Claims Commission has jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to section 9-8-307(a)(l)(N). See Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(N) (1999 & Supp. 2003); Washington v. Robertson County, 29 S.W.3d 466, 475 (Tenn.2000) (<HOLDING>). See also Boyd v. Tenn. State Univ., 848
holding that a municipality cannot be liable on a respondeat superior theory holding that the doctrine of respondeat superior in maryland allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship citations omitted holding governmental entity liable for malicious harassment of its employee under doctrine of respondeat superior holding that chesterman is the only test to determine whether an employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior recognizing respondeat superior liability