Owens v. WellCare Health Plans et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Court dismisses with prejudice Owens' Title VII and ADA claims against Baker. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 7/16/2018. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANYALE OWENS,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17-1391-DRH

WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS
and MARIE BAKER,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Introduction and Background
Pending before the Court is defendant Baker’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint because Owens did not exhaust her administrative remedies as to Baker
as she did not name Baker in her EEOC charge and because Baker must be
dismissed as individual supervisors cannot be liable for discrimination under the
Americans with Disabilities Act or Title VII (Docs. 11 & 12). On July 13, 2018,
Owens filed a response to the motion. Based on the following, the Court grants the
motion.
On December 27, 2017, Danyale Owens pro se filed suit against her former
employer, WellCare Health Plans, and her former supervisor, Marie Baker, alleging
that defendants harassed her, discriminated against her, and retaliated against
because of her disability (Doc. 1). She claims that the WellCare Health Plans failed
Page 1 of 3

to take any action after she complained about defendant Baker’s conduct against
her.
Motion to Dismiss Standard
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the
complaint, not its merits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d
1510, 1520 (7th Cir.1990). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the
Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint and draws all
reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor. AnchorBank, FSB v.

Hofer, 649 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2011). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the
complaint must not only provide the defendant with fair notice of a claim's basis but
must also be facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555, 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678.
Analysis
Title VII and ADA claims against Baker
As stated supra, Baker argues that the claims against her must be dismissed
as individual supervisors cannot be liable for discrimination under the ADA or
Title VII. Baker also argues that these claims against her must be dismissed as
Page 2 of 3

Owens did not exhaust her administrative remedies.
It is well-settled that Title VII and the ADA do not impose liability upon
individual employees, but rather employers. Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552 (7th
Cir. 1995)(discussing principle in regard to Title VII and ADA claims); Horwitz v.

Bd. of Educ. of Avoca Sch. Dist. No. 37, 260 F.3d 602, 610 (7th Cir. 2001)(“We have
suggested that there is no individual liability under the ADEA. See Matthews v.

Rollins Hudig Hall Co., 72 F.3d 50, 52 n. 2 (7th Cir.1995); Thelen v. Marc's Big Boy
Corp., 64 F.3d 264, 267 n. 2 (7th Cir.1995).”). Therefore, Baker cannot be held
individually liable under these statutes.

Thus, the Court grants the motion to

dismiss with prejudice for failure to state a claim and dismisses with prejudice the
plaintiff’s claims against Baker that are brought pursuant to Title VII and the ADA.
Based on the supra, the Court need not address Baker’s arguments regarding
exhaustion.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant Baker’s motion to dismiss (Doc.
11). Thus, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Baker as a named defendant as
to Owens’ claims brought pursuant to the ADA and Title VII.

Judge Herndon
2018.07.16
10:10:54 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3