Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00397/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00397-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNY BELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05CV397-T

)

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is before the court on the complaint filed by the plaintiff, JOHNNIE BELL

[“Bell”] on 29 April 2005 (Doc. # 1). In a civil action against two defendants, the Alabama

Department of Corrections and Donal Campbell [“Campbell”], the Commissioner of

Corrections, the plaintiff has invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §1981. Bell alleges that the defendants discriminated against

him because of his race (African American). 

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes, sua sponte, that the Title VII claim

against Campbell should be dismissed, because he is an employee. Only employers are

suable under Title VII.

I. DISCUSSION

"The relief granted under Title VII is against the

employer, not individual employees whose

actions would constitute a violation of the Act."

Case 2:05-cv-00397-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 3
Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 773

(11th Cir. 1991).

The law in the Eleventh Circuit is settled that employees may not be sued in their

individual capacity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Busby, supra

("Individual capacity suits under Title VII are . . . inappropriate."); Quillen v. American

Tobacco Company, 874 F.Supp. 1285, 1296 (M.D. Ala. 1995) (individual entitled to

summary judgment "as to Title VII claims against him in both his official and individual

capacties"). See also Yeager v. Norwest Multifamily, Inc., 865 F.Supp. 768, 770 (M.D. Ala.

1994); Bahadirli v. Domino's Pizza, 873 F.Supp. 1528, 1533, n. 2 (M.D. Ala. 1995)

(Albritton, J.); Smith v. Capitol City Club of Montgomery, 850 F.Supp. 976, 978 (M.D. Ala.

1994) (Thompson, J.); and Blalock v. Dale County Bd. of Ed., 33 F.Supp. 2d 995, 998 (M.D.

Ala. 1998).

Based upon clear and recent authority, the plaintiff may not maintain a Title VII action

against the individual defendants, and they are entitled to dismissal as named parties.

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the Title

VII claims against defendant DONAL CAMPBELL be DISMISSED.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or

before 21 November 2005. A party must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections

Case 2:05-cv-00397-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 3
will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed

findings and recommendations shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on

appeal factual findings accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of

plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See th

Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc). th

DONE this 7 day of November, 2005. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00397-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 11/07/05 Page 3 of 3