Opinion ID: 197466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the identity of the defendants

Text: Before closing, we note a procedural anomaly. For reasons best known to her, the appellant elected to sue three of her former partners and their fledgling partnership, but not the Firm. This tactic raises questions about whether the new partnership can be held liable as a successor to the Firm and whether law partners can be held individually liable as employers under Title VII. The last question, in particular, is potentially difficult. Compare Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1314-17 (2d Cir. 1995) (dismissing the possibility of individual liability under Title VII) with Kauffman v. Allied Signal, Inc., 970 F.2d 178, 184-85 (6th Cir. 1992) (suggesting that individual liability exists). This circuit has not resolved the issue. See Scarfo v. Cabletron Sys., Inc., 54 F.3d 931, 951-52 (1st Cir. 1995) (leaving the question open). We need not enter this thicket today. It is crystal clear that the liability (if any) of the individual defendants and the new partnership cannot possibly exceed that of the actual employer. Because Serapion was not an employee, her suit cannot proceed under Title VII against any of the individual defendants or against the new partnership. 9Because this ground is dispositive of the federal claim, we take no view of the district court's alternative holding that Serapion failed to make out a prima facie case of gender-based discrimination. 25