WALKER v. ALDI FOOD MARKET INC et al

Filing 21

ORDER: Walker's claims against Defendants Shupe and Hammons are DISMISSED without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 11/28/2017. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TRACY LATRICE WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALDI FOOD MARKET INC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-3 (MTT)

ORDER
Plaintiff Tracy Latrice Walker alleges claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., against Defendants Aldi Food Market, Inc.,
Deborah Shupe, and Molly Hammons. At the October 4, 2017 status conference, the
Court informed Walker that Title VII does not provide liability on the part of individual
defendants and thus her claims against Defendants Shupe and Hammons would be
dismissed unless, within fourteen days of that hearing, Walker advised the Court why
those claims should not be dismissed. Walker timely responded to the Court’s request
arguing Shupe and Hammons acted deliberately against her because of her race. Doc.
19. Despite Walker’s arguments, Defendants Shupe and Hammons cannot be liable
under Title VII because “[t]he relief granted under Title VII is against the employer, not
individual employees whose actions would constitute a violation of the Act.” Cross v.
State of Ala., State Dept. of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 49 F.3d 1490, 1504
(11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991)).

Accordingly, Walker’s claims against Defendants Shupe and Hammons are
DISMISSED without prejudice.1
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of November, 2017.

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

1

The Court notes that dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim is practically with prejudice because the 90-day
period after receipt of her right to sue letter from the EEOC, in which the Plaintiff must file her complaint,
has passed. However, as stated, Walker’s claims against Shupe and Hammons fail as a matter of law,
and any amendment would be futile. Therefore, despite the running of the limitations period, dismissal is
warranted.

-2-