Opinion ID: 866926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Pladson

Text: Mwangi next argues the district court erred in dismissing Prudential's owner Susan Pladson from the case. At trial, Mwangi admitted Pladson had done nothing to her personally and, in fact, she had never met or dealt with Pladson. She named Pladson as a defendant merely because [s]he owns the agency in which Dale Braegelmann functions. Trial Tr. 57. When asked by the court what evidence he could produce to suggest Pladson approved of Braegelmann's conduct, Mwangi's attorney Chinedu Nwaneri answered, Well, they are in the same company and this is what they have been doing joint together. Id. at 128. Finding insufficient evidence to justify the imposition of vicarious liability on a claim of intentional discrimination, the district court dismissed Pladson from the case. We find no error in this determination. See Daniels v. Dillard's, Inc., 373 F.3d 885, 888 n.4 (8th Cir. 2004) (Liability under §§ 1981 . . . requires a showing of intentional discrimination, which is seemingly incompatible with respondeat superior principles. (internal citation omitted)); cf. Green, 483 F.3d at 540-41 (permitting application of respondeat superior principles where principal's own negligence contributed to agent's violation of of the home bars recovery under § 1981. -7- § 1981). Moreover, Mwangi's failure to establish a discrimination claim against Braegelmann necessarily terminates any liability on the part of Pladson.