Earl v. Res-Care, Inc., et al.

Filing 28

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant Holloman is dismissed from this action. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/3/2016. (Romine, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 4:15-CV-200-BO

STEPHEN L. EARL,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

)
)

RES-CARE, INC. a/k/a RES-CARE
HOME CARE, INC. and TRACI
HOLLOMAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)

This cause comes before the Court on defendant Traci Holloman's motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has failed to respond
and the matter is ripe for ruling. For the reasons discussed below, Holloman's motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action alleging discrimination in employment under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he was
denied employment for a Clinician II position on the basis of his sex. Plaintiff alleges that he is
qualified to provide personal care services and was told by defendant Holloman, an executive
director of Res-Care, that he would not be considered for the position because he is male and the
individual to receive personal care services is female. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a right-to-sue letter on
November 19, 2015.

DISCUSSION
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Papasan v. Allain,
478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). When acting on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "the court
should accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most
favorable to the plaintiff." Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). A
complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Facial plausibility means that the facts

pied "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged"; mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by conclusory
statements do not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Plaintiff has alleged that Holloman was an employee of Res-Care when she denied
plaintiff's application for employment, and has alleged only claims for violation of Title VII in
his complaint. Title VII has been read, however, to foreclose liability of individuals. Lissau v. S.
Food Serv., Inc., 159 F.3d 177, 180 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Yesudian ex rel. US. v. Howard
Univ., 270 F.3d 969, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (listing cases). Plaintiff has not opposed Holloman's

motion, and Holloman is properly dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Holloman's motion to dismiss [DE 17] is GRANTED and defendant
Holloman is dismissed from this action.

SO ORDERED, thisj_ day of August, 2016.

~LE&yt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2