Court Opinion

ID: 2964956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:26.645204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:55.673089
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1115

                                   GERTRUDE GOROD,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                    DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                             _____________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Gertrude Gorod on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Scott Harshbarger,  Attorney General, Richard  H. Spicer  and Lucy
            _________________                     __________________      ____
        A. Wall, Assistant Attorneys General, on brief for appellees.
        _______

                                 ____________________

                                   OCTOBER 9, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff Gertrude  Gorod commenced
                 __________    ___ __

            this action against the Department of Employment and Training

            (DET) and several of its employees seeking relief under Title

            VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42  U.S.C.   2000e, and the

            Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.    621

            et seq.1   The  district court  dismissed plaintiff's  claims
                   1

            against  the DET  as a  sanction for  failing to  comply with

            numerous discovery  orders.   Plaintiff's claims  against the

            other  defendants had been previously dismissed on the ground

            that     employees  cannot  be  liable  in  their  individual

            capacities under Title VII or the ADEA.

                 Having thoroughly reviewed  the record and  the parties'

            briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not

            abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's claims against

            the DET.  See Valentine v. Museum  of Modern Art, 29 F.3d 47,
                      ___ _________    _____________________

            48 (2d  Cir. 1994).  We  need not decide whether  the court's

            ruling dismissing the individual defendants was  correct, for

            it  is clear  that had  this ruling  not been  entered, these

            claims would  have  been  dismissed  along  with  plaintiff's

            claims against the  DET.  Plaintiff's persistent  refusals to

            comply with  the district  court's discovery  orders provides

            independent  justification for  the dismissal  of her  claims

            against the  individual defendants.   Plaintiff's  contention

                                
            ____________________

               1The  individual  defendants  are  Nils  Nordberg,  Doreen
               1
            Gately, Anna McKeon and John Marra. 

                                         -2-

            that the  district  court erred  in  denying her  motions  to

            sanction defense counsel is wholly meritless.

                 Accordingly,  the  judgment  of  the  district court  is

            summarily affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
                      ________   ___

                                         -3-