Journet v. Maulding et al, No. 4:2019cv00666 - Document 15 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered GRANTING 12 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint . The claims against Maulding, Ramey, Westman and Williams are dismissed. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Journet v. Maulding et al Doc. 15 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ANDRE PALO JOURNET, Plaintiff, VS. MARK MAULDING, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § July 01, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-666 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Andre Palo Journet, representing himself, has sued Mark Maulding; Terry Ramey; Joe Westman; Kelly Williams; and Stericycle, Inc., asserting Title VII violations based on race discrimination and retaliation. (Docket Entry No. 1). Journet, an African American, alleges that he worked as an Environmental Specialist at Stericycle between May 2015 and May 2018, and that he was discriminated and retaliated against, and eventually fired, because of his race. (Docket Entry No. 1 at 4–5). The individual defendants—Mark Maulding, Terry Ramey, Joe Westman, and Kelly Williams—have moved to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim because “the Fifth Circuit has clearly held that ‘there is no individual liability for employees under Title VII.’” (Docket Entry No. 12 at 3 (quoting Smith v. Amedisys Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 448 (5th Cir. 2002))). Journet did not respond. The individual defendants are correct. Because “[i]ndividual employees cannot be sued under Title VII in either their individual or official capacities” as a matter of law, the court dismisses the claims against Mark Maulding, Terry Ramey, Joe Westman, and Kelly Williams, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Udeigwe v. Tex. Tech Univ., 733 F. App’x 788, 792 n.6 (5th Cir. 2018); see Malcolm v. Vicksburg Warren Sch. Dist. Bd. of Tr., 709 F. App’x 243, 248 Dockets.Justia.com (5th Cir. 2017) (“Individuals are not liable under Title VII in either their individual or official capacities.” (quotation omitted)); Baldwin v. Layton, 300 F. App’x 321, 323 (5th Cir. 2008) (“This court has repeatedly rejected any individual liability under Title VII.”); Ackel v. Nat’l Comm’cns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376, 381 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Individuals are not liable under Title VII in either their individual or official capacities.”); Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc., 164 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[A] party may not maintain a suit against both an employer and its agent under Title VII.”); Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 653 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[I]ndividuals who do not otherwise qualify as an employer cannot be held liable for a breach of title VII.”). SIGNED on July 1, 2019, at Houston, Texas. ______________________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal Chief United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
