Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hoskins v. Droder

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division

November 5, 2018

LALANGIE HOSKINS PLAINTIFF
v.
EUGENE DRODER, III, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          MICHAEL P. MILLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This cause comes before the Court on Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice [37][39] [48][50]. The Court, having considered the memoranda and submissions of the parties, along with relevant case law and evidence, is now prepared to rule.

         Background

          On 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.

         In June 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.

         Standard

          Before 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.

         Discussion

         a. Title VII

         "[R]elief 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 Cir. 2003).

         Here, 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) are GRANTED.

         b. ADA

         Like 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 Contreras.

         c. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.