United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. STIVERS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Mark Jeffery Bardwell initiated this pro se
employment discrimination action. Because Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review
the complaint and amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, the action
will be dismissed in part and allowed to proceed in part.
filed a letter which the Court construed as a complaint for
employment discrimination against Shoney's Restaurant (DN
1). At the Court's direction, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on a Court-supplied employment discrimination form
(DN 5). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff indicates that he
is bringing suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12112-12117. Plaintiff also names two additional
Defendants in his amended complaint - Oscar Parker, whom
Plaintiff identifies as the owner of Shoney's in
Hopkinsville, Kentucky; and Tony Offett, whom Plaintiff
identifies as the assistant manager of Shoney's in
Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Plaintiff has filed a right-to-sue
letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (DN
4). He seeks monetary damages in this action.
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a district court must
dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds
by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim,
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). “[A] district court must (1) view the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
(2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.”
Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d
478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v.
Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations
courts are to hold pro se pleadings “to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,
” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this
duty to be less stringent “does not require us to
conjure up unpled allegations, ” McDonald v.
Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a
claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l
Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir.
1975). To command otherwise would require courts “to
explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro
se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district
court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role
of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most
successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v.
City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
review, the Court will allow Plaintiff's claims under the
ADA and Title VII to proceed against Shoney's.
the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's claims against
Defendants Parker and Offett because neither the ADA nor
Title VII provides for individual liability. Mayes v.
City of Oak Park, 285 Fed.Appx. 261 (6th Cir. 2008);
see also Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197
F.3d 804, 808 n.1 (6th Cir. 1999) (“Individual
supervisors who do not independently qualify under the
statutory definition of employers may not be held personally
liable in ADA cases.”); Wathen v. Gen. Elec.
Co., 115 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that an
individual supervisor, who does not otherwise qualify as an
“employer” under the statute, may not be
personally liable under Title VII); Harris v. Heritage
Home Health Care, 939 F.Supp.2d 793, 798-800 (E.D. Mich.
2013) (collecting cases and holding that individuals cannot
be held liable under Title VII based upon their alleged
status as “owners”). Thus, Plaintiff's claims
against Defendants Parker and Offett will be dismissed for
failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted.
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Parker and Offett
are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may granted.
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate
Defendants Parker and ...