O'Donnell v. Mitchell

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [# 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against James Mitchell are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall i ssue process or cause process to issue as to defendant the Mitchell James Salon by serving its agent James L. Mitchell at: 335 The Boulevard, Richmond Heights, Missouri, 63117. An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 11/14/2016. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TAMMY O'DONNELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES MITCHELL, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:16-CV-1651 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

The

motion will be granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to review the
complaint and dismiss any part of it that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Upon review of the complaint, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs
claims against the individual defendant James Mitchell. However, plaintiff's case will proceed
against the Mitchell James Salon.
Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Named as
defendants are the Mitchell James Salon and James Mitchell, plaintiffs former supervisor.
Plaintiff alleges that James Mitchell treated her differently than a white employee and retaliated
against her after filing a complaint against the salon with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
Title VII provides a remedy only against an "employer." The Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals has squarely held that "supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII."

Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community School District, 121 F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir.
1997) (citing Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank, 123 F.3d 690, 691-92 (8th Cir. 1997) (per

curiam)); see Bales v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 143 F.3d 1103 , 1111 (8th Cir. 1998).

As a result,

plaintiffs claims against James Mitchell, as an individual, fail to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted and are subject to dismissal. Nonetheless, the Court will issue process on
plaintiffs claims against the Mitchell James Salon for discrimination and retaliation pursuant to
Title VII.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [#2] is
GRANTED .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against James Mitchell are
DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to

issue as to defendant the Mitchell James Salon by serving its agent James L. Mitchell at: 335 The
Boulevard, Richmond Heights, Missouri, 63117.
An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Order.

Dated this

//~y of November, 2016.

~;f~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2