Beville v. Taylor Wharton Cryogenics LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiff's Title VII claims against the individual defendants are dismissed, without prejudice to the plaintiff's ability to file a second amended complaint by 2/19/16. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 1/25/2016. Copy of Order mailed to plaintiff. (mbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THERESA A. BEVILLE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) CIVIL ACTION 15-0560-WS-C
)
TAYLOR WHARTON CRYOGENICS,)
LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the individual defendants’ motion to
dismiss. (Doc. 15). The plaintiff filed a response, (Doc. 19), the defendants
declined to file a reply, (Doc. 16), and the motion is ripe for resolution.
The amended complaint, (Doc. 4), asserts claims of race and sex
discrimination in violation of Title VII. (Id. at 2). The amended complaint names
as defendants the entity the plaintiff claims was her employer, plus the six
movants, whom she describes as “co-workers.” (Id. at 3).
“[W]e now expressly hold that relief under Title VII is available against
only the employer and not against individual employees whose actions would
constitute a violation of the Act, regardless of whether the employer is a public
company or a private company.” Dearth v. Collins, 441 F.3d 931, 933 (11th Cir.
2006) (emphasis omitted). This is true even when the individual is the president
and sole shareholder of the corporate employer. Id. at 932, 934.
The plaintiff’s only response is that her “case has merit” and that she “ha[s]
witnesses who are ready and willing to come to court.” (Doc. 19). As discussed
above, controlling law deprives her of any Title VII cause of action against the
individual defendants, regardless of the merit of her case otherwise.

The movants ask that the dismissal of the Title VII claims against them be
with prejudice. Such relief can be provided, but not before the plaintiff is given an
opportunity to amend her complaint as against the individual defendants.1
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss is granted. The
plaintiff’s Title VII claims against the individual defendants are dismissed,
without prejudice to the plaintiff’s ability, on or before February 19, 2016, to file
a second amended complaint properly stating a claim against the individual
defendants, failing which the individual defendants shall be dismissed with
prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2016.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Before dismissal with prejudice of a defendant for failure to state a claim, a pro
se plaintiff must be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if a more carefully
drafted version might state a claim. E.g., Lee v. Alachua County, 461 Fed. Appx. 859,
860 (11th Cir. 2012); Schmitt v. United States Office of Personnel Management, 403 Fed.
Appx. 460, 462 (11th Cir. 2010).
2