Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-01050/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-01050-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gural Foster
Plaintiff
Angie Massey
Defendant
Pro Window & Door Inc
Defendant

Document Text:

1

Thomas W. Garland, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 596 F.2d 784, 787 (8th Cir. 1979).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

GURAL FOSTER PLAINTIFF

V. 4:07CV01050-WRW

ANGIE MASSEY and PRO

WINDOW & DOOR INC. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Separate Defendant Angie Massey (Doc. No.

11). Plaintiff has not responded, and the time for doing so has passed. This is an action brought

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for Employment Discrimination. Plaintiff seeks back

pay, reinstatement, and damages. For the reasons provided below, Defendant’s Motion is

GRANTED.

Defendant argues that she cannot be held individually liable under Title VII, and

therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

I. Standard

A motion to dismiss should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff

can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.1

 The complaint’s allegations must be

accepted as true; and, the complaint, and all reasonable inferences arising from it, must be

Case 4:07-cv-01050-BSM Document 16 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 3
2

United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128, 143 (1965); Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053,

1059 (8th Cir.1983); Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 717 (8th Cir. 1974).

3

Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F. 2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974); Smith v. Quachita Technical

College, 337 F.3d 1079, 1080 (8th Cir. 2003). 

4

Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 446-447 (8th

Cir. 1997).

5

Grissom v. Waterloo Indus., 902 F. Supp. 867, 870 (E.D. Ark. 1995).

6

Id.

construed in a plaintiff’s favor.2

 A complaint should not be dismissed merely because the

complaint does not state with precision all elements that give rise to a legal basis for recovery.3

II. Discussion

Defendant argues that she cannot be held individually liable under Title VII. She is

correct. The Eighth Circuit has unequivocally held that supervisory employees are not

individually liable under Title VII.4

A supervisory employee may be joined as a defendant in Title VII actions.5

 However,

the supervisory employee must be viewed as being sued in his capacity as an agent for the

employer, and the employer alone is liable for a violation of Title VII.6

 In other words,

supervisors can be individually named as parties to a suit as agents and representatives of the

employer, but they cannot be held individually liable for damages resulting from Title VII

violations.

Plaintiff has named supervisor, Angie Massey, as a defendant in this case. However, as a

matter of law, since Massey cannot be held individually liable under Title VII, Plaintiff’s

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Massey.

Case 4:07-cv-01050-BSM Document 16 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 3
III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Angie Massey

(Doc. No 11) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendant Angie Massey is DISMISSED 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January 2008.

 /s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-01050-BSM Document 16 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3