United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
NON-FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
CATHERINE M. SALINAS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is proceeding in this disability discrimination matter
pro se. This case is before the Court on the motion
to dismiss (Doc. 17) filed by the individual defendants,
Brian Thomas Moore, Paul W. Burke, and Emily Craig
review of the record, the undersigned submits the following
Non-Final Report and Recommendation and Order.
Vincent Alonzo Tucker (“Plaintiff”) is a former
employee of Defendant Drew, Eckl & Farnham, LLP
(“Defendant DEF”). (Doc. 3, Compl. ¶ 14). In
his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was
discriminated against on the basis of an alleged disability
(bipolar disorder) and retaliated against, when his
employment with Defendant DEF was terminated on November 21,
2017. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14; Doc. 3 at 8). In addition
to asserting claims against his former employer,
Plaintiff's complaint also seeks to hold the Individual
Defendants liable for alleged disability discrimination and
retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (Compl.
¶¶ 1, 4, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17).
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
7, 2018, the Individual Defendants filed the instant Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's ADA claims against
them on the basis that the ADA does not authorize or permit
individual liability. (Doc. 17).
response, Plaintiff filed what he labeled and what the
Clerk's Office docketed as “Plaintiff's Motion
to File Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 19). However, a
review of the filing shows that it should more properly be
construed as Plaintiff's response in opposition to the
Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. (See
id. at 1 [“Plaintiffs' (sic) allegations
demonstrate a valid claim for relief and the motion to
dismiss must not be granted.”]).
response, however, is for the most part
nonsensical. The response cites facts and statutes that
are inapplicable to the ADA claims that he is asserting in
this matter. The response does not refute or rebut or even
mention the Individual Defendants' assertion of case law
establishing that there is no individual liability under the
ADA, nor does it provide any argument for why the Individual
Defendants should not be dismissed from this lawsuit. The
response concludes with a summary of Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and why amendments to complaints
are permitted, but Plaintiff has stated no grounds for why he
should be permitted to amend his complaint.
regard to the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss,
the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that suits against
individuals are not allowed under Title VII or the ADA.
See Smith v. Lomax, 45 F.3d 402, 403 n.4 (11th Cir.
1995) (stating that individuals “cannot be held liable
under ... Title VII”); Busby v. City of
Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991)
(“Individual capacity suits under Title VII are ...
inappropriate”); Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490
F.3d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that individual
defendants are not amenable to private suit for violating the
antidiscrimination provisions of Subchapter I of the ADA);
Mason v. Stallings, 82 F.3d 1007, 1009 (11th Cir.
1996) (no individual liability under the ADA); see also
Aque v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.Supp.2d 1336,
1342 (N.D.Ga. 2009) (“It is well established that there
is no individual liability under [the ADA]). The Eleventh
Circuit has similarly held that the ADA also precludes
individual liability for claims of retaliation. See
Albra, 490 F.3d at 833.
noted above, Plaintiff has offered no meaningful response in
opposition to the Individual Defendants' motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff's complaint names the Individual
Defendants as defendants in their individual capacities.
Because individual liability is precluded for violations of
the ADA's employment discrimination and retaliation
provisions, I RECOMMEND that the Individual
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's ADA claims
against them (Doc. 17) be GRANTED, and that
Plaintiff's ADA claims against the Individual Defendants
be dismissed with prejudice.
this recommendation, and in light of the parties' joint
request to be referred for mediation, to the extent
Plaintiff's filing at Docket Entry 19 was intended to be
a request for leave to file an amended complaint, it is
hereby DENIED as moot, without prejudice to
renew at a more appropriate juncture.
IS SO ORDERED ...