Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Erwood v. Aspire Staffing, LLC

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

June 26, 2015

SHALAKO S. ERWOOD, Plaintiff,
v.
ASPIRE STAFFING, LLC, et al., Defendants.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Chief Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Shalako Erwood, proceeding pro se, sues Aspire Staffing, LLC, and its owner, Mark Free, for employment discrimination under Title VII. He asserts that Free subjected him to a sexually hostile work environment through unwelcome verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature. This action is presently before the court on defendant Free's motion to dismiss (Doc. # 8).

Free contends that he is not plaintiff's "employer" as defined by Title VII and, thus, that "this lawsuit is due to be dismissed with prejudice against Mark Free." ( Id., p. 1). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Aspire Staffing, LLC, "continuously conducted business in Montgomery County, Alabama, has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees and has continuously been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, " and that Free is Aspire Staffing's "sole member[.]" (Complaint, ΒΆΒΆ 5, 6). Although the court gave him an opportunity to do so (see Doc. # 10), plaintiff has not responded to Free's motion to dismiss.

Title VII does not provide a cause of action against individuals. "The relief granted under Title VII is against the employer, not individual employees whose actions would constitute a violation of the Act." Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Dearth v. Collins, 441 F.3d 931 (11th Cir. 2006)(no claim under Title VII, either directly or under alter ego theory, against the sole shareholder/president of corporate employer for sexual harassment by that individual). Accordingly, Free's motion to dismiss is due to be granted.[1]

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that defendant Free's motion to dismiss (Doc. # 8) be GRANTED, and that plaintiff's Title VII claims against Free be DISMISSED with prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to file the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and to serve a copy on the parties to this action. The parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to this Recommendation on or July 10, 2015. Objections must identify specifically the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. See United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009)(citing Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.