Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00560/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00560-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 29:754 Discrimination

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THERESA A. BEVILLE, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-0560-WS-C

 )

TAYLOR WHARTON CRYOGENICS,)

LLC, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the individual defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. (Doc. 15). The plaintiff filed a response, (Doc. 19), the defendants 

declined to file a reply, (Doc. 16), and the motion is ripe for resolution.

The amended complaint, (Doc. 4), asserts claims of race and sex 

discrimination in violation of Title VII. (Id. at 2). The amended complaint names 

as defendants the entity the plaintiff claims was her employer, plus the six 

movants, whom she describes as “co-workers.” (Id. at 3). 

“[W]e now expressly hold that relief under Title VII is available against 

only the employer and not against individual employees whose actions would 

constitute a violation of the Act, regardless of whether the employer is a public 

company or a private company.” Dearth v. Collins, 441 F.3d 931, 933 (11th Cir. 

2006) (emphasis omitted). This is true even when the individual is the president 

and sole shareholder of the corporate employer. Id. at 932, 934. 

The plaintiff’s only response is that her “case has merit” and that she “ha[s] 

witnesses who are ready and willing to come to court.” (Doc. 19). As discussed 

above, controlling law deprives her of any Title VII cause of action against the 

individual defendants, regardless of the merit of her case otherwise. 

Case 1:15-cv-00560-WS-C Document 22 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 2
2

The movants ask that the dismissal of the Title VII claims against them be 

with prejudice. Such relief can be provided, but not before the plaintiff is given an 

opportunity to amend her complaint as against the individual defendants.1

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss is granted. The 

plaintiff’s Title VII claims against the individual defendants are dismissed, 

without prejudice to the plaintiff’s ability, on or before February 19, 2016, to file 

a second amended complaint properly stating a claim against the individual 

defendants, failing which the individual defendants shall be dismissed with 

prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2016.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 Before dismissal with prejudice of a defendant for failure to state a claim, a pro 

se plaintiff must be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if a more carefully 

drafted version might state a claim. E.g., Lee v. Alachua County, 461 Fed. Appx. 859, 

860 (11th Cir. 2012); Schmitt v. United States Office of Personnel Management, 403 Fed. 

Appx. 460, 462 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Case 1:15-cv-00560-WS-C Document 22 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2