United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL P. MILLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause comes before the Court on Defendants' Rule
12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice 
. The Court, having considered the memoranda and
submissions of the parties, along with relevant case law and
evidence, is now prepared to rule.
November 09, 2017, Lalangie Hoskins (Plaintiff) filed her
complaints, pro se, against Eugene Droder, III,
Angel Contreras, and GE Aviation (collectively Defendants)
alleging claims of employment discrimination under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In her complaint, Plaintiff
describes Defendant Contreras as the "Lead Human
Resources Rep." for GE Aviation and Defendant Droder as
"Counsel, Labor and Employment" for GE Aviation.
2018, Defendant Angel Contreras and Defendant Eugene Droder,
III, moved to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint against them under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants ask this court to dismiss all Title VII claims,
any claims under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), and any claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA). Defendants also made alternative motions to dismiss;
however, because this Court finds that dismissal of both
cases is proper pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) it will not discuss
the Defendants' alternative arguments.
the Court can grant a motion to dismiss, a Defendant must
show that Plaintiff has not met the relevant pleading
standard to state a claim. Specifically, a Defendant must
show that Plaintiffs complaint fails to "state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 697, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d
868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A
claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Id. at 678.
under Title VII is available only against an employer, not an
individual supervisor or fellow employee." Foley v.
Univ. of Hous. Sys., 355 F.3d 333, 340 (5th Cir. 2003).
"Individuals are not liable under Title VII in either
their individual or official capacities." Ackel v.
Nat'l. Commc'ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376, 381 (5th
because Defendants Droder and Contreras are agents of GE
Aviation, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Droder and
Conteras, in their individual capacity, fail as a matter of
law. Therefore, Defendant Droder's and Defendant
Contreras's motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
her Title VII claims, Plaintiff s ADA claims against
Defendants Droder and Contreras in their individual capacity
fail as a matter of law. Pursuant to district court holdings
within the Fifth Circuit, as well as holdings by and within
other circuits, there is no individual liability under the
ADA. See Franklin v. City of Slidell, 928 F.Supp.2d
874, 882 (E.D. La. 2013); Lefort v. Lafourche Parish Fire
Protection Dist. No. 3, 39 F.Supp.3d 820 (E.D. La.
2014); see also Jones v. Steinheimer, 387 Fed.Appx..
766 (4th Cir. 2009); see also Purcell v. Am. Legion,
44 F.Supp.3d 1051 (E.D. Wash. 2014) (collecting cases among
various district courts finding that there is no individual
liability under the ADA - "the consensus view among the
district courts in this as well as the Second, Tenth, and
Eleventh Circuits is there is no individual liability. .
.under the ADA."). Thus, this Court GRANTS
Defendants' rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss any ADA
claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants Droder and