Reed v. Arkansas Children's Hospital et al
ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss and dismissing party Danny O'Kelly. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 2/13/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 4:11CV00891 JMM
ARKANSAS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, ET AL.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Danny O’Kelly’s Motion to Dismiss (#18). For
the reason stated below, the motion is granted (#18).
Plaintiff brings this law suit against Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Danny O’Kelly, and
Justin Williams contending that she was subjected to gender discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
In his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff contends that the claims against him should be
dismissed because individuals are not “employers” under federal discrimination laws and thus
are not proper defendants in Title VII discrimination suits.
When analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court construes the complaint in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ritchie v. St. Louis Jewish Ligfht, 630 F.3d 713, 715-16
(8th Cir. 2011). “To survive a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations in a complaint, assumed
true, must suffice ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Northstar Indus., Inc.
v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 576 F.3d 827, 832 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 1940121 f3d 446
, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
The allegations in the Complaint are that Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment
because of her gender. Defendant O’Kelley is not named, nor or any allegations made against
him, in the body of the complaint, and he is not listed as Plaintiff’s employer on the EEOC
The Court finds that Defendant O’Kelly should be dismissed because individuals who are
not employers are not liable under Title VII. Bales v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 143 F.3d 1103,
1111 (8th Cir. 1998) (liability under Title VII borne by employers, not individuals);
Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 446, 447 (8th
Cir.1997) (supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII).
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 13
day of February , 2012.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?