HUDSON v. MIDDLE FLINT BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE et al

Filing 11

ORDER: The Court construes the Defendants' Answer to move the Court for dismissal of individual defendants Todd Thompson and Dianne Thomason. As announced at the October 24, 2012, scheduling and discovery conference, that motion is GRANTED. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 10/25/2012. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

NICOLA C. HUDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDDLE FLINT BEHAVIORAL
HEALTHCARE, TODD THOMPSON and
DIANNE THOMASON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-284 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Defendants’ Answer (Doc. 7) to the Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 1). The Court construes the Defendants’ Answer to move the Court for dismissal
of individual defendants Todd Thompson and Dianne Thomason. As announced at the
October 24, 2012, scheduling and discovery conference, that motion is GRANTED.
The Plaintiff brought her Complaint for employment discrimination based on race
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Individual
defendants are generally not proper defendants to such a claim. “‘The relief granted
under Title VII is against the employer, not individual employees whose actions would
constitute a violation of the Act.’” Hinson v. Clinch Cnty., 231 F.3d 821, 827 (11th Cir.
2000) (quoting Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991)). See also
Dearth v. Collins, 441 F.3d 931, 933 (11th Cir. 2006). The proper way for a plaintiff to
recover under Title VII is to sue her employer by either naming the employer directly or
by naming supervisory employees as agents of the employer. Busby, 931 F.2d at 772.

Here, Hudson has named Middle Flint Behavioral Healthcare as a defendant and
has thereby sought relief against the correct defendant, her employer. Counsel for
Middle Flint concedes that Middle Flint is the proper party. The Plaintiff gave no reason
for joining Thompson or Thomason other than their participation in the allegedly
discriminatory conduct. Naming Thompson and Thomason as defendants in their
individual capacities is neither necessary nor proper. For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s
Title VII claims against Thompson and Thomason are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED, this 25th day of October, 2012.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT