42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Section 2000e(b) measures employer coverage with reference to the year of the alleged Title VII violation.

Depaoli v. Vacation Sales Associates, L.L.C. · filed 2007-06-12(b)

Moreover, § 2000e(b) unquestionably references the year of the alleged violation.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer's agents within the definition of employer, so authority to take tangible employment actions can establish supervisory status on the employer's behalf.

Huff v. Sheahan · filed 2007-07-16(b)

If the individual defendants indeed were authorized to take tangible employment actions against Ms. Huff, affecting her employment relationship with the Sheriff, this authority in and of itself is sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that Mr. Guerra and Mr. Douvris were supervising Ms. Huff on behalf of the Sheriffs Department.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer for Title VII purposes, and the court held that the Department was not Shehab’s employer because it lacked control over his work.

Shehab v. New York State Department of Transportation · filed 2007-09-06(b)

The undisputed facts are that the Department played no role in the selection of Shehab, nor did it exert control over the manner and means by which Shehab performed his duties during his tenure at Chas H. Sells, Inc. (“Sells”). The only alleged involvement of the Department in Shehab’s employment appears to have been its review of his eligibility for the training program. This is insufficient to establish an employment relationship: “interference” with employment is “irrelevant if the [Department] does not satisfy the common-law agency test for employer liability.”

The employer definition covers entities with at least 15 employees for 20 calendar weeks and allows aggregation of related entities in specified circumstances.

Drebing v. Provo Group, Inc. · filed 2007-10-11(b)

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Drebing, a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that the relevant entities here are deliberately divided to avoid liability under the discrimination laws. First, obviously, are Provo’s two purported admissions that he structures his businesses to keep them small and that he understands that he does not have to keep jobs available for women who take maternity leave. Second is that fact that several of the interrelated companies with which Provo is associated have overlapping functions or perform work primarily for one another. TPG Systems does accounting work for The Provo Group, and 99% of its income comes from companies controlled by Provo or The Provo Group. TPG Management manages Evergreen Plaza’s shopping center, another entity primarily controlled by Provo. The employees of the various Provo entities perform duties for multiple Provo companies and also have overlapping responsibilities and functions. Drebing’s expert Graff opines that Provo financially controls all the relevant entities. While TPG Systems was incorporated in 1995 and TPG Management was incorporated in 1988, this does not necessarily prevent the conclusion that they were created at that time to avoid liability. Further, while there may be legitimate explanations for the structure of the Provo-related entities, a reasonable jury could conclude that these entities are divided to avoid liability under discrimination laws. Therefore, I find that Drebing can overcome the 15-employee minimum requirement of § 2000e(b).

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees; individual supervisors who do not qualify as employers are not liable under Title VII.

Strickland v. Jewell · filed 2007-11-15(b)

Even if this were so, employees cannot be held liable under Title VII. Title VII defines an employer as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). It does not provide a cause of action against individual defendants, such as supervisors, who do not qualify as employers.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees; union stewards paid entirely by HUD did not count as employees of the union.

Dean v. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 476 · filed 2008-04-27(b)

Thus, the Court shall deny Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration insofar as it challenges the Court’s conclusions that the Local’s stewards are not employees of the Local for purposes of Title VII, that the Local therefore does not meet that statute’s definition of an employer, and that Plaintiff cannot pursue her Title VII claims against the Local as a result.

Section 2000e(b)'s definition of employer does not make individual supervisors liable under Title VII.

Easton v. COLLEGE OF LAKE COUNTY · filed 2008-07-10(b)

The Seventh Circuit has held that, under Title VII, supervisors are not liable as employers under the definition of the act. ... Therefore, the claims under Title VII and the ADA in regard to Dr. Kartje are dismissed.

Section 2000e(b)'s fifteen-employee minimum cannot be met by aggregating a state agency's employees with those of other state agencies under the single-employer test.

Garrett-Woodberry v. Mississippi Board of Pharmacy · filed 2008-11-20(b)

Thus, it seems clear that the “single employer” test should not be applied here, as the Board is a state agency and is thus a governmental subdivision.

Section 2000e(b) does not treat a franchisor as the workers’ employer when the franchisee operates independently and the franchisor does not control their work.

Matthews v. International House of Pancakes, Inc. · filed 2009-01-23(b)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Matthews and McGee have not presented any proof that the IHOP Entities meet the statutory definition of employer for the purposes of this litigation.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents in the definition of employer and limits Title VII liability to employers with at least fifteen employees; a plaintiff must allege an employment relationship with the defendant.

Liles v. Revetaw, Inc. · filed 2009-03-06(b)

Title VII also limits liability to “employers” that retain fifteen employees, and includes “agents” of an employer within the definition of “employer.” ... Because Liles had not alleged that the Defendants were ever her employers, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least 15 employees for Title VII liability.

Ziegler v. Adams · filed 2009-03-20(b)

company did not employ at least 15 employees and, thus, could not be an “employer” for purposes of Title VII liability.

Independent contractors do not count toward the employee threshold in Title VII’s definition of an employer.

Cintron-Alonso v. GSA CARIBBEAN CORP. · filed 2009-07-31(b)

For all of the above, this Court finds that Defendant has provided sufficient evidence that its insurance agents are independent contractors, and not employees as imagined by Title VII. Therefore, there being no further dispute over the number employees at the company, this Court concludes that GSA does not meet the 15 employee threshold as required by Title VII, and these claims must be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 2000e’s definition of employer can encompass a parent and subsidiary as an integrated enterprise under a four-factor test.

Sandoval v. American Building Maintenance Industries, Inc. · filed 2009-08-26(b)

Therefore, Congress plainly intended the term "employer" be interpreted in accord with the four-factor integrated enterprise test.

Section 2000e's definition of employer may encompass a parent and subsidiary as an integrated enterprise, assessed through interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership or financial control.

Sandoval v. American Building, etc. · filed 2009-08-26(b)

Therefore, Congress plainly intended the term "employer" be interpreted in accord with the four-factor integrated enterprise test.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees for Title VII to apply.

Mason v. Invision · filed 2009-10-05(b)

Accordingly, Invision was not an “employer” for purposes of Title VII, Mason could not establish the elements of his claims, and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 2000e’s employer definition does not make individuals liable under Title VII merely because they work for an employer.

Soni v. BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORP. · filed 2009-10-09(b)

In any event, the defendants are correct that under the law of this Circuit, only employers, and not individuals, may be liable under Title VIL ... Therefore, Dr. Soni’s claim under Title VII shall be dismissed against all defendants except BUSM.

A company that was never the claimant’s employer cannot be held liable as her employer for discrimination under Title VII.

Ford v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America · filed 2009-11-09(b)

In any event, because Unum was never her employer, she cannot establish a discrimination claim against the company under Title VII.

Title VII’s definition of “employer” requires fifteen or more employees for each working day in at least twenty calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

Charles v. A Choice Nanny · filed 2009-12-16(b)

Chaplin claims that she employs fewer than fifteen employees and, as a result, is not an “employer” covered by Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (defining “employer” as any person “engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year”). Charles has been unable to submit evidence in opposition to that claim. Accordingly, the District Court correctly found that no genuine issue of fact existed as to whether Chaplin was an “employer” for purposes of Title VII, and the District Court properly granted summary judgment in Chaplin’s favor.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees to be subject to Title VII liability.

Quitoriano v. RAFF & BECKER, LLP. · filed 2009-12-29(b)

First, the Firm does not meet Title VII’s threshold requirement that it employ at least fifteen employees or the ADEA’s requirement that it employ at least twenty employees to be subject to liability: beyond its two partners, the Firm only has four employees.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer; a supervisor who does not qualify as an employer cannot be held personally liable under Title VII.

Allen v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services · filed 2010-03-12(b)

Supervisory employees are not typically proper defendants under Title VII because they do not fall within the definition of “employer.” “Employer” is defined to mean a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees and any agent of such person. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). The Court finds that Defendant Birnbrich is not an “employer,” and therefore, dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is proper.

Section 2000e(b) defines “employer,” and courts construe that term liberally when deciding whether related entities are a single employer.

Johnson v. Hospital Corp. of America · filed 2011-02-11(b)

Although the statutory definition of “employer” under Title VII focuses on the number of employees a company employs and compensates, the Fifth Circuit has held the term “employer” as used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was meant to be liberally construed.

Section 2000e(b)'s definition of employer does not make an employee individually liable under Title VII.

Vaughan v. Amtrak · filed 2011-04-20(b)

The Court concurs. It is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire an individual because of his race, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), or age, see 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), and Acheson in her individual capacity is not considered an employer who can be held liable under these statutes.

Section 2000e defines an employer under Title VII; a supervisor who does not independently qualify as an employer cannot be held individually liable.

Brooks v. Dent · filed 2011-06-10(b)

Title VII defines “employer” as a “person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees ... and any agent of such a person.... ” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Plaintiff does not argue that the individual supervisor Gary Dent qualifies as an “employer.” It is well-settled that a supervisor who does not otherwise qualify as an “employer” may not be held individually liable under Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) does not make an individual supervisor who is not the plaintiff’s employer liable as an employer under Title VII.

Cyprian v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY MONTGOMERY · filed 2011-07-01(b)

With respect to the Title VII claims, Jackson is not Cyprian’s employer. Indeed, Jackson is not an employer at all as that term is used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agent in the definition of “employer,” but does not make the agent personally liable under Title VII.

Carpenter v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2011-08-10(b)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs Title VII claims may not proceed against the individual Defendants, as Title VII liability does not attach to individuals acting in their individual capacity.

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of employer makes employer status an element of a Title VII claim rather than a jurisdictional requirement.

Garcia v. Shell Oil Company and Gustavo Pennilla D/B/A Quality Turbo Services · filed 2011-09-08(b)

Accordingly, whether Shell and Penilla qualified as employers under the statute was an element of Garcia’s claim and not a jurisdictional issue.

Section 2000e(b) defines who qualifies as an employer, and a Title VII complaint must allege that the defendant has that status.

Lance v. Wilson · filed 2011-09-09(b)

Absent allegations that the defendant is an employer who discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 2000e(b) includes the University within Title VII’s definition of an employer.

Toth v. California University of Pennsylvania · filed 2012-01-09(b)

The University is an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) counts workers in a corporation’s unincorporated operation under a fictitious name toward the fifteen-employee threshold.

Nelson v. Ace Steel & Recycling, Inc. · filed 2012-02-01(b)

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment turns on whether Nelson’s employer had fewer than 15 employees. Ace Steel, including its Cow Country Equipment “subsidiary,” had more than 15 employees throughout the time of Nelson’s employment, but fewer than 15 of those worked in the segment of the business that Defendant calls Cow Country Equipment. ... Ace Steel’s use of the fictitious name Cow Country Equipment does not create an entity separate from Ace Steel.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents in the definition of employer, so an agent’s actions can be imputed to the employer.

Kramer v. Wasatch County · filed 2012-03-09(b)

The actions of Sheriff Van Wagoner are imputed to Wasatch County because it is undisputed that the Sheriff was acting as the County's agent.

An entity is an employer under Title VII when it controls the fundamental aspects of the employment relationship that gave rise to the claim.

Robbins v. Chatham County · filed 2012-03-26(b)

Under this inquiry, the lack of authority or control possessed by one entity over another’s employment decisions precludes a finding of liability because the entity lacking control does not meet the definition of an employer under the requisite statute.

Section 2000e(b) limits Title VII liability to employers with at least 15 employees for each working day in 20 or more calendar weeks of the current or preceding year; that threshold is an element of the claim.

Aly v. Mohegan Council, Boy Scouts of America · filed 2012-05-18(b)

Congress has limited Title VII liability to employers with “fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” ... In either case, the jury’s determination that defendant had 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in 2005 was not unreasonable.

An entity that neither employs the plaintiff nor significantly affects the plaintiff’s access to employment opportunities does not qualify as a Title VII employer.

Bradley v. Baltimore Police Dep't · filed 2012-08-22(b)

However, under that standard, the City Defendants do not qualify in this case as employers of Bradley for Title VII purposes. Bradley has made no plausible allegation that the City Defendants affected his access to employment opportunities, significant or otherwise.

Section 2000e’s definition of employer excludes individuals who are not the plaintiff’s employer from Title VII liability.

Torres v. Gonzalez · filed 2012-09-30(b)

Under federal law, there are no claims against Pedro Toledo and José Figueroa Sancha, as they are not plaintiff’s employers under the "employer” definition provided by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a).

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of “employer” excludes a supervisor sued in his individual capacity.

Gallentine v. Housing Authority · filed 2013-01-22(b)

Quesada is the Executive Director of the Housing Authority and Gallentine’s supervisor. Therefore, he does not meet the statutory definition of “employer,” and Gallentine’s Title VII claims against him are dismissed.

Section 2000e(b)'s definition of employer does not make co-owners or supervisors individually liable under Title VII merely because they act as agents of the employing entity.

Harris v. Heritage Home Health Care · filed 2013-03-29(b)

Because Plaintiff fails to support her contrary interpretation of Title VII with any relevant Sixth Circuit law, the Court declines to adopt this reasoning and holds that Bamishe and Ogunleye cannot be held liable as individuals under Title VII based upon their alleged status as “owners” and “agents” of Defendant Heritage.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees; that threshold is an element of a Title VII claim, not a limit on subject matter jurisdiction.

Brown v. Collins · filed 2013-04-17(b)

The District Court erred in its determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. “[T]he fifteen-employee threshold is a substantive element (whether an „employer‟ exists) of a Title VII claim and is not jurisdictional.” ... Because Collins was not an “employer” for the purposes of Title VII, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 2000e(b)'s employer definition determines coverage of a Title VII employment discrimination claim.

De La Peña v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2013-07-11(b)

MetLife falls squarely within the statutory definition of an employer for the purposes of a Title VII employment discrimination claim.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer to include a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has at least fifteen employees.

Murphy-Taylor v. Hofmann · filed 2013-09-12(b)

Title VII defines an “employer” to include “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees.”

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents in the definition of “employer,” so the motives and knowledge of a subordinate principally responsible for an employment decision may be attributed to the employer.

Harris v. Powhatan County School Board · filed 2013-10-22(b)

Title VII defines employer as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day . . . and any agent of such a person.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2006) (emphasis added). ... Under our precedent, it is therefore proper to attribute Dr. Meara’s (and to a lesser extent Imig’s) motives and knowledge to the Board.

Title VII requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees; people who do not qualify as employees do not count toward that threshold.

Pastor v. Partnership for Children's Rights · filed 2013-11-05(b)

Elizabeth Pastor, pro se, appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Partnership for Children’s Rights (“Partnership”), dismissing her employment discrimination complaint because the Partnership did not have the requisite fifteen or more employees to constitute an “employer” for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., during the relevant years. ... The District Court considered Pastor’s arguments that various volunteers, interns, board members, and others constituted employees within the meaning of Title VII and the ADA, and concluded, based on the undisputed facts, that they did not. We affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated in the District Court’s memorandum and order of September 28, 2012.

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of employer can cover an entity that controls a worker’s access to the workplace and can effectively end the worker’s employment.

Stoner v. Arkansas Department of Correction · filed 2013-11-18(b)

Further, even when considering the 12 factors as outlined by the ADC, the Court determines the ADC may be considered Ms. Stoner’s employer under Title VII. The Court reaches this conclusion based on the facts in the record regarding the ADC’s training of CMS employees on sexual harassment policies and reporting requirements, Warden Maples’s view that he holds CMS employees accountable to the same standards as ADC employees, and Warden Maples’s ability to ban a CMS employee from the Newport Complex, effectively terminating his or her employment.

Section 2000e’s employee definition refers to its employer definition, so an allegation of employee status can sufficiently plead the employer headcount requirement.

Bialek v. Delvista Towers Condominium Ass'n · filed 2014-01-10(b)

While this is not a model pleading, the Court, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, can infer that the Plaintiff has incorporated (if lazily) the numerosity requirement into its pleading. Because “employee” and “employer” are explicitly defined in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII, and because the definition of “employee” circularly references the definition of the term “employer,” the Court will allow claims under these statutes to proceed.

Section 2000e(b) treats an employer’s agent as an employer even when the agent does not formally employ the worker.

Brown v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2014-03-07(b)

The "agent of” language imputes employer status to a third party who does not formally employ the aggrieved worker, just as would the "de facto employer” test that the petitioners advanced in Lopez.

Section 2000e(b) counts a person as an employee on a day when an employment relationship exists, even if the person does not work or receive pay that day.

Frederick v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America (UBCJA) Local 926 · filed 2014-03-12(b)

The test for whether an employer “has” an “employee” is whether the employer has an employment relationship with the employee on the day in question, and not whether the employee actually performs work or receives compensation on the day in question.

Section 2000e(b) defines a covered employer as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees for each working day in twenty weeks of the current or preceding calendar year.

Luna v. North Babylon Teacher's Organization · filed 2014-04-07(b)

Title VII defines “employer” as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Thus, liability under Title VII does not extend to employers with fewer than fifteen employees. ... Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs Title VII claim, against the Union, as an employee of the Union on the ground that the Union is not an “employer” for the purposes of Title VII, without prejudice to later motion practice, if appropriate.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees for each working day in twenty or more weeks of the current or preceding calendar year.

Perkins v. Kushla Water District · filed 2014-05-14(b)

To be an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII, the District must “have fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” ... Therefore, the District is entitled to summary judgment as to any claim or cause of action based on Title VII because it does not have the requisite number of employees.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents in its definition of employer; a training provider may qualify when an employer delegates a core duty to it.

Pathan v. Connecticut · filed 2014-05-15(b)

The language of Title VII makes clear that Congress intended for agents of employers to be held to the same standards as employers. ... Indeed, and as addressed supra, the statute encompasses employers’ agents within its very definition of “employer.”

Section 2000e(b) includes a political subdivision’s agents in its definition of an employer.

Watts v. Lyon County Ambulance Service · filed 2014-06-02(b)

Title VII’s definition of employer also includes “any agent of such a [political subdivision].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (emphasis added). Defendants do not dispute — indeed, Defendants argue — that the Board members are agents of the Board. (Docket No. 54-1, at 33-34.) Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss the individual Defendants on this Count.

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of employer does not make an employee or elected county official personally liable for Title VII compensatory damages.

Arthur v. Whitman County · filed 2014-06-05(b)

Clearly, if Reynolds is considered to be merely an employee of Wfiiitman County under Title VH, he cannot be held individually liable. In that circumstance, only Whitman County can be held liable under respondeat superior (agency) principles and this court would be justified in finding as a matter of law that Reynolds is a “proxy” for the county such that liability is automatically imputed to the county. Even if Reynolds is considered an employer by virtue of being the elected county assessor, he can only be held liable in his official capacity, and not in his personal capacity. Effectively, the result is that only Whitman County can be held responsible for compensatory damages under Title VII.

Section 2000e(b)'s definition of employer can encompass a parent and subsidiary that operate as a single integrated enterprise.

Brown v. Daikin America Inc. · filed 2014-06-27(b)

Because Brown has pleaded facts that, if true, demonstrate that Daikin America and DIL conducted interrelated operations, had common ownership, and were subject to centralized control of labor relations, we conclude that he has plausibly alleged that DIL and Daikin America both were his employer for purposes of his Title VII and NYSHRL claims.

Section 2000e(b) limits Title VII employer liability to an employer or its agent.

Fisher v. Miller · filed 2014-07-08(b)

Sadowski could not be liable to Fisher under Title VII, as she was not his employer nor an agent of the employer.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents in its definition of employer, but an employee’s retaliation is attributable to the employer only when the employee acts as its agent.

Spencer v. Schmidt Electric Company · filed 2014-08-05(b)

Title VII defines an “employer” to be “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . , and any agent of such a person . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... Not all employees of the employer are agents for purposes of a retaliation claim. ... Because Vidrine’s and Machen’s actions cannot be attributed to the employer, Schmidt cannot be held liable under Title VII for the intimidation, even if it was in retaliation for Spencer’s engaging in protected activity.

Section 2000e(b) requires a covered Title VII employer to have at least 15 employees for each working day in 20 or more weeks during the current or preceding calendar year.

Belizaire v. Rav Investigative & Security Services Ltd. · filed 2014-11-21(b)

Magistrate Judge Freeman’s well-reasoned Report presents no such errors and is therefore fully adopted by this Court. ... As a threshold matter, each statute applies only to employers of a particular size: Title VII applies to employers with at least 15 employees “for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); ... Given these representations, the Court can take judicial notice of Defendant’s size and conclude that Defendant meets the threshold size requirements of Title VII, the ADEA, and the NYSHRL.

Section 2000e(b) excludes federal agencies from Title VII’s definition of an employer.

Ayala v. Shinseki · filed 2015-03-06(b)

However, federal agencies are excluded from the definition of the term "employer." See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

Section 2000e(b) requires at least 15 employees for an entity to qualify as an employer under Title VII.

Salas v. Independent Electrical Contractors Inc. · filed 2015-05-14(b)

Nor is it an employer under Title VII, the ADEA, or the WLAD because it has only five employees. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (Title VII, requiring 15 or more employees); 29 U.S.C. § 630(b) (ADEA, requiring 20 or more employees); Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.040(11) (WLAD, requiring eight or more employees).

Section 2000e(b) can treat a staffing agency’s client as an employer when the client controls significant aspects of a worker’s employment.

Parker v. Golden Peanut, LLC · filed 2015-07-15(b)

This court has explained that “the term ‘employer’ under Title VII should be ‘construed in a functional sense to encompass persons who are not employers in conventional terms, but who nevertheless control some aspect of the individual’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.’” ... Based on the facts detailed above, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to Defendant’s status as Plaintiffs “employer” for purposes of Title VII liability, thus precluding summary judgment on this ground.

Section 2000e(b) covers an employer with at least 15 employees, including entities whose combined workforce meets that threshold as an integrated enterprise.

French v. Idaho State · filed 2016-02-22(b)

At this stage, the Court accepts French’s factual allegations as true and finds them sufficient to show that Idaho' AFL-CIO is an employer under Title VII and the ADA.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agent in the definition of employer; when a state agency is the agent, the state’s employee count can determine the Title VII damages cap.

Diaz v. Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics · filed 2016-12-15(b)

Because the state is the relevant employer, and because it is undisputed that the state has more then 500 employees, the cap is $300,000.

Section 2000e(b)’s employee threshold determines whether an entity qualifies as an employer under Title VII.

Copeland v. Arklay LLC · filed 2017-09-19(b)

Though Copeland originally brought claims under both Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, she now concedes in her opposition to Arklay’s motion that Arklay did not employ more than fifteen people in any month during the years of her employment, and thus does not qualify as an “employer” for purposes of Title VII.

Section 2000e(b)'s definition of employer does not expressly exclude foreign governments or their agencies.

Barot v. Embassy of the Republic of the Zam. · filed 2018-03-08(b)

Nothing in either statute expressly excludes the government of any foreign state or agency from coverage.

Section 2000e(b) excludes Indian tribes from Title VII's definition of employer.

McCoy v. Salish Kootenai Coll., Inc. · filed 2018-08-10(b)

However, Indian tribes are not "employers" who may be sued under Title VII because they are excluded from the statutory definition of "employer." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) ("The term 'employer' ... does not include (1) ... an Indian tribe....").

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer to include a person in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees during the required period and that person's agents.

Cagle v. Estes · filed 2018-08-22(b)

Title VII defines "employer" as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with fifteen or more employees during each working day in twenty or more weeks in the current or preceding year, including an agent of that person.

Clark v. Teamsters Local Union 651 · filed 2018-10-24(b)

An "employer" is defined under Title VII as "person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person ..." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

The Title VII definition of employer does not impose individual liability on individual employees.

Logan v. City Of Chicago · filed 2018-10-24(b)

Defendants are correct. See Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552, 553-54 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing EEOC v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd., 55 F.3d 1276, 1279-82 (7th Cir. 1995) (finding that “employer” under Title VII does not provide for individual liability)).

Section 2000e(b) treats an entity as an employer under Title VII when it exercises sufficient control and the economic realities support liability.

Hampton v. Democratic Party of Illinois · filed 2018-10-30(b)

Thus, to determine if an entity constitutes an employer, the Seventh Circuit looks to “whether the putative employer exercised sufficient control, and whether the ‘economic realities’ are such that the putative employer can be held liable under Title VII.”

Section 2000e(b) defines a Title VII employer as one with 15 or more employees.

White v. Washington Intern Student Housing · filed 2019-04-25(b)

In order to assert a claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant is an employer with 15 or more employees.

Section 2000e(b) requires a Title VII employer to have at least fifteen employees; a supervisor who personally employs fewer than fifteen workers is not individually liable as an employer.

Coon v. Richland Parish · filed 2019-06-04(b)

A Title VII “employer” is “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . and any agent of such a person.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (emphasis added). ... Because Cooper does not personally employ fifteen or more workers, she is not an “employer” under Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) excludes the United States from Title VII’s definition of “employer.”

Moore v. Nielsen · filed 2019-07-03(b)

However, the United States is excluded from the definition of “employer” for purposes of Section 2000e-2. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

An individual supervisor or employee who does not qualify as an employer under § 2000e(b) is not personally liable for Title VII violations.

Dorsey v. Watson · filed 2019-07-23(b)

Here, Defendant is not an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII and, thus, is not liable in his individual capacity as a supervisor or an employee.

Section 2000e(b) defines who qualifies as an employer under Title VII; an individual supervisor cannot be sued personally unless they qualify as an employer.

Kahler v. Walmart · filed 2019-08-20(b)

Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA preclude personal capacity suits against individual supervisory employees, as they are not considered “employers” under the respective statues.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer for Title VII; employees and supervisors who do not themselves qualify as employers are not personally liable.

Howlett v. Warren, City of · filed 2019-09-16(b)

Accordingly, the Court will only consider Plain- tiff’s Title VII claim against the City of Warren as Plaintiff’s “employer.”

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of employer does not make supervisors individually liable for Title VII violations.

Alston v. State of Maryland Department of Health · filed 2019-09-17(b)

Because the controlling case law does not allow for supervisors to be liable in their individual capacities on Title VII claims, Alston’s claims against Brown-Demery, Davis, Watts, and McMahan in their individual capacities are dismissed.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer under Title VII as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees for the required period.

WESTBROOK v. BRIDGES COMMUNITY SERVICES · filed 2019-09-19(b)

Title VII defines an employer as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... Because the relevant, admissible designated evidence shows Bridges had no more than thirteen employees during 2014 and 2015, Bridges does not qualify as an “employer” under Title VII or the ADA.

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of employer does not make individual supervisors liable under Title VII when they do not themselves qualify as employers.

HUNTER v. DEPTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2019-10-01(b)

Plaintiff has not presented any evidence suggesting that Defendants Margolese and Berglund, in their individual capacities, meet the definition of “employer” under either the ADEA or Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) excludes the United States from Title VII’s definition of an employer.

Byer v. Wilkie · filed 2019-10-02(b)

Although both parties refer the court to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), which declares that “[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer ... to ... discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s ... sex,” the United States is not an ... “employer” as defined by the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (stating that the term “does not include ... the United States”).

Section 2000e(b) excludes corporations owned by federally recognized Indian tribes from Title VII’s definition of an employer.

Johnson v. Oneida Nation Enterprise LLC · filed 2019-10-11(b)

Defendant is a corporation owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe and, as such, is not an "employer" under the statutory definition of Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer by its commercial activity and employee count and includes the employer’s agents.

Obinyan v. Prime Therapeutics LLC · filed 2019-10-31(b)

This means that, to establish Title VII liability on the part of a particular defendant, the plaintiff must prove both that the defendant meets Title VII’s definition of “employer,” i.e., “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . , and any agent of such a person . . . ,” Muhammad v. Dallas County Community Supervision & Corrections Department, 479 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting 42 ... U.S.C. § 2000e(b)), and that “an employment relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant,” id. (citing Deal v. State Farm County Mutual Insurance Co., 5 F.3d 117, 118 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993)).

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees for the specified period; individual supervisors are not employers liable under Title VII.

Doe v. Chesapeake Medical Solutions, LLC · filed 2019-12-02(b)

Plaintiff’s Title VII claim, however, is only viable against her employer, and not against Dr. Gianelle. See Lissau v. S. Food Serv., Inc., 159 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding that there is no individual liability under Title VII). In order to qualify as an employer for purposes of Title VII liability, an employer must have “fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (2012).

Section 2000e(b) excludes a business from Title VII when it lacks the required number of employees for the required period.

Prince v. Appleton Auto LLC · filed 2019-12-19(b)

Without the statutorily required number of employees for the requisite number of weeks in either relevant year, Applecars is not considered an “employer” under Title VII and thus Title VII does not apply.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer to include a person with at least fifteen employees for each working day in twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

Roberts v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 648 · filed 2019-12-20(b)

Defendant is correct. Under Title VII, an “employer” is defined as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person . . .” 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). ... Plaintiff failed to contest this showing. As a result, summary judgment of plaintiff’s complaint is proper on this ground alone.

Related companies may qualify as a single integrated employer under § 2000e(b), depending on the evidence.

Telano v. Evans Oil Co L L C · filed 2019-12-26(b)

Both Title VII and the ADA define an “employer,” in pertinent part, as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). ... Based on the evidence presented at this time, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Daily Press and Evans Oil are an integrated employer for purposes of Telano’s Title VII and ADA claims.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees for each working day in twenty or more weeks of the current or preceding calendar year.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Roark-Whitten Hospitality 2, LP · filed 2019-12-30(b)

On the other hand, after considering the SAC, the court concludes that it plausibly alleges that RW2 operated the hotel with “fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

Section 2000e(b) defines “employer”; individual supervisors who do not meet that definition cannot be held personally liable under Title VII.

Jackson-Forbes v. State of Ohio Industrial Commission · filed 2020-01-28(b)

Title VII defines “employer” as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Because they do not meet the definition of “employer,” Defendants Black and Bainbridge cannot be held liable for Plaintiff's Title VII claims.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents in the definition of “employer.”

Massey v. Dorning · filed 2020-02-07(b)

However, the statute defines “employer” to include the employer “and any agent of” the employer.

Section 2000e(b)'s definition of employer does not make individual supervisors liable under Title VII merely because they act as agents or have hiring and firing authority.

Sabet v. City of North Chicago Illinois · filed 2020-02-20(b)

Here, neither of the individual Defendants are employers and thus cannot be sued under Title VII; they are thus entitled to summary judgment as to these three counts.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer for Title VII; individual employees are not personally liable as employers.

Mitchell v. Jefferson Parish · filed 2020-03-04(b)

Neither is an “employer” under Title VII or the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees for twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.

Haule v. Move Austin Forward · filed 2020-04-06(b)

It defines the term “employer,” in relevant part, as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person.” Id. § 2000e(b). ... There is no genuine dispute of material fact that AF was not an “employer” within the ambit of Title VII and thus not subject to Title VII hability.

Section 2000e(b) limits individual liability under Title VII to people who qualify as employers.

Phillips v. University of Maryland Baltimore County · filed 2020-04-10(b)

However, a person can be held liable under Title VII in his or her individual capacity only if that person qualifies as an “employer” within the meaning of the statute.

Section 2000e(b) defines who qualifies as an employer; an employee or supervisor is not individually liable under Title VII unless they qualify as an employer or its agent.

Jones v. Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services - Children Services Division · filed 2020-04-29(b)

Under Title VII, an “employer” is defined as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees ... and any agent of such person.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... In this case, the Amended Complaint does not plead sufficient facts to find that Hay, Good or Shaw are employers or “agents” of an employer under Title VII so that they are liable in individual capacities.

A coworker who is neither an employer nor a supervisor with traditional employer powers cannot be liable under Title VII.

Henderson v. Howard's Inc. · filed 2020-05-08(b)

It is apparent from Plaintiff’s pleading and EEOC charge that Acker was neither his employer nor a supervisor that wielded the traditional rights of an employer.

Section 2000e(b) covers employers with at least 15 employees on each working day for 20 or more calendar weeks in the year of the alleged discrimination or the preceding year.

Flannery v. Tune Imports, Inc. · filed 2020-05-15(b)

Employers are subject to Title VII and the ADA only if they have at least 15 employees on each working day for 20 or more calendar weeks in either the year in which the alleged discrimination occurred or the preceding year.

Section 2000e(b) defines who qualifies as an employer under Title VII; individual superiors and coworkers who do not qualify cannot be held liable under it.

Watson v. Hargens · filed 2020-05-29(b)

Title VII thus does not allow aggrieved employees to recover from individual superiors or coworkers.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents in the definition of employer, but does not impose Title VII liability on the agents themselves.

Singleton v. City Marshal Office of Monroe · filed 2020-05-29(b)

Title VII imposes liability only on “employers.” ... While Title VII defines the term employer to include “any agent” of an employer, id. § 2000e(b), this circuit does not interpret the statute as imposing individual liability for such a claim. ... Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Title VII claims against Marshal Highshaw is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least 15 employees for 20 calendar weeks in the current or preceding year; seasonal workers may count during required training even when unpaid.

Carbajal v. Hayes Management Services, Inc. · filed 2020-06-04(b)

An employer is not subject to Title VII unless it “has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... Adding the seven additional employees —Pauline Hayes and the six tax preparers—to the calculation shows Hayes Management had 15 or more employees for 22 weeks of 2016. Accordingly, Hayes Management’s motion for summary judgment will be denied.

An entity that has never employed anyone does not qualify as an employer under § 2000e(b).

Fletcher v. H.B. Properties Management Company · filed 2020-06-04(b)

Plaintiff did not refute the affidavit submitted by Defendants, indicating that H.B. Enterprises never employed anyone, and accordingly under the plain language of the statute, H.B. ... Enterprises does not qualify as an “employer.”

Section 2000e(b) requires a Title VII defendant to qualify as an employer under the statute’s definition, including its fifteen-employee requirement.

CHILDS v. MACON-BIBB COUNTY INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY · filed 2020-06-12(b)

Thus, in order for the Authority to be held liable for any of Childs’ discrimination claims brought under Title VII, it must qualify as an “employer” under the statute’s definition. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... Accordingly, Childs’ Title VII claims against the Authority must be dismissed since it was not her employer.

Section 2000e(b) generally defines an employer as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least 15 employees.

Postell v. Wells · filed 2020-06-25(b)

Under both Title VII and the ADA, an “employer” is generally defined as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A); 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b). ... Nor does Plaintiff allege facts suggesting that the Fallsburg Library has the minimum number of employees to meet the definition of “employer” under Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer to include its agents, but a supervisor is not individually liable under Title VII merely because the supervisor is an employee or agent.

GRAHAM v. HEALTHPLEX · filed 2020-06-29(b)

The Complaint falls far short of pleading that Hyder was Graham's "employer" as contemplated by Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) permits employees of entities that constitute a single employer to be counted together toward Title VII’s fifteen-employee threshold.

Hooge v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 2020-06-09(b)

Consequently, because the Court previously found that Hooge has shown a genuine issue of material fact as to whether UP and LRA are a single employer, the numbers of employees for both entities may be aggregated by the Court to meet Title VII’s numerosity requirement on summary judgment.

Section 2000e(b) defines a Title VII employer to include a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees for the specified period.

Lora v. Centralized Management Service · filed 2020-06-12(b)

Title VII defines an “employer” as a “person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... Here, while the Court does not consider the extraneous materials submitted by the parties, it is clear from the face of the AC that Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that any of the Defendants are an employer under Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees for each working day in at least twenty calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.

Beall v. A2Z Limousine Trans · filed 2020-06-29(b)

Although the evidence in the record by no means proves that A2Z had at least fifteen employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in 2013 or 2012, the court concludes that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial as to whether A2Z had enough employees to qualify as an employer under Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer to include its agents, but individual employees cannot be sued separately under Title VII when the employer is also sued.

Jones v. Rooms To Go · filed 2020-07-06(b)

Title VII defines “employer” to mean “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . and any agent of such a person.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... Here, Plaintiff has sued both RTG and individual employees. The Title VII claims against the individual defendants are therefore not cognizable.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer for Title VII purposes; individual supervisors and employees are not personally liable as employers.

Dodds v. East · filed 2020-07-16(b)

Supervisors and individual employees are not considered “employers” and, thus, are not personally liable for Title VII violations.20 As a result, Ms. Dodds’s claims against Separate Defendants cannot stand and are dismissed with prejudice.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer to include a person who meets Title VII’s fifteen-employee threshold; at the pleading stage, employees of a business operating under an owner’s fictitious name may be attributed to that owner.

SPARKS v. SPEEDY KLEENE CAR WASH & LAUDROMAT · filed 2020-07-22(b)

Title VII defines “employer” as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... For the reasons discussed above, this Court finds that Sparks has sufficiently alleged that Devecka is her employer, and that he employs fifteen or more people.

Section 2000e(b) requires a Title VII plaintiff to allege that the employer has at least 15 employees.

THOMAS v. GRYCK · filed 2020-07-20(b)

In doing so, she must also allege that Angelia’s has at least 15 employees.

Section 2000e(b)’s employee-number threshold is an element of a Title VII claim, not a limit on subject matter jurisdiction.

Eubanks v. Mac's Sports Bar and Steakhouse · filed 2020-07-23(b)

Put simply, the jurisdictional analysis is also premature, and the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title VII claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is also due to be denied.

Section 2000e(b) defines a Title VII employer as a person with at least fifteen employees and includes the person's agents, but it does not make agents individually liable.

Principe v. Vill. of Melrose Park · filed 2020-08-18(b)

Title VII and the ADA define “employer” as a person “engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees,” and “any agent of such a person.” ... So the inclusion of agents in Title VII and the ADA did not create individual liability; rather, ... Congress included the phrase “to ensure that courts would impose respondeat superior liability upon employers for the acts of their agents.” AIC, 55 F.3d at 1281; see Banning, 72 F.3d at 553.

Section 2000e(b) requires a Title VII plaintiff to allege that the defendant engages in an industry affecting commerce and has fifteen or more employees.

Kelley v. Kahootz Bar/Grill · filed 2020-09-04(b)

Nevertheless, that Defendant is engaged in an industry affecting commerce, and that Defendant has fifteen or more employees, are necessary elements of Plaintiff’s Title VII claim.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person with at least fifteen employees for each working day in twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.

Noel v. CARite of Garden City · filed 2020-10-05(b)

Under Title VII, the term “employer” means “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e. ... Triable questions of fact exist regarding whether Garden City employed fifteen or more employees.

Section 2000e(b) requires a Title VII employer to have at least fifteen employees for twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.

Eaton v. National Older Worker Career Center · filed 2020-11-10(b)

For instance, to qualify as an “employer” under Title VII a defendant needs “fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person or agent engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees; coworkers and individual supervisors are not liable as employers under Title VII.

Carter v. Chief Carriers · filed 2020-11-13(b)

Title VII defines an employer as a person, or any agent of such person, “engaged in an industry affecting commerce” with a minimum of fifteen employees. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... Neither Wessels nor Stolle are employers under Title VII and will be dismissed.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees for the required twenty calendar weeks; a complaint must adequately plead that requirement.

Hawkins v. TRT Holdings Inc · filed 2021-01-15(b)

Title VII defines an “employer” as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.”

Section 2000e(b) covers an employer with at least fifteen employees on each working day for twenty or more calendar weeks in the year of the alleged discrimination or the preceding year.

Satterwhite v. Ashtabula County Metroparks · filed 2021-01-19(b)

ACMP does not meet Title VII’s definition of a covered employer because it employed fewer than fifteen employees for twenty or more weeks in 2019. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

Section 2000e(b) does not make an employee of a larger entity personally liable under Title VII merely because the employee has authority and control over it.

LUKASAK v. PREMIER SPORTS EVENTS LLC · filed 2021-02-03(b)

The Plaintiff appears to draw the erroneous conclusion that authority and control are enough to make someone a Title VII employer. But the First Circuit and a litany of other courts have made clear that Title VII claims cannot be brought against individuals who are employed by a larger entity, even when that individual is the boss.

Title VII liability requires the defendant to meet the definition of an employer and have an employment relationship with the plaintiff.

Obinyan v. Prime Therapeutics LLC · filed 2021-03-17(b)

This means that, to establish Title VII liability on the part of a particular defendant, the ... plaintiff must prove both that the defendant meets Title VII’s definition of “employer,” i.e., “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . , and any agent of such a person . . . ,” Muhammad v. Dallas County Community Supervision & Corrections Department, 479 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)), and that “an employment relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant,” id. (citing Deal v. State Farm County Mutual Insurance Co., 5 F.3d 117, 118 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993)).

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person with fifteen or more employees; alleging that a defendant is a Title VII employer sufficiently pleads that threshold.

Johnson v. Singh Senior Living, LLC · filed 2021-05-04(b)

An employer under Title VII "is defined to mean 'a person . . . who has fifteen or more employees.'" Wathen v. Gen. Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 405 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)). When Plaintiff alleged that Singh was her employer under the NCEEPA and Title VII she necessarily alleged that Singh employed 15 or more people under the text of the applicable statutes. Plaintiff's state law wrongful discharge and Title VII claims may therefore proceed.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer to include an entity engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees for twenty weeks in the current or preceding year.

Okeke v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund · filed 2021-05-21(b)

Tulane qualifies as an employer under Title VII’s definition, as it is an entity “engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.”

Section 2000e(b) can cover an entity as an employer when it jointly employs a worker or significantly affects the worker’s access to employment opportunities.

Roddy v. Riverbend Maximum Security Institution · filed 2021-05-21(b)

But for now, the Court concludes that Roddy has plausibly alleged that TDOC was her “employer” for purposes of Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer for Title VII purposes; individual employees are not employers subject to Title VII liability.

KEVIN C. RICE V. FRONT BOOTH SECURITY AGENT UPS · filed 2021-06-03(b)

An “employer” is defined as a “person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . and any agent of such a person.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has declined to extend liability under Title VII to individuals, such as those persons or entities just named, holding the term “employer” as used in Title VII does not encompass individual employees. Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1078 (3d Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the Title VII claims against Front Booth Security Agent at UPS and Security Supervisor for UPS are dismissed with prejudice.

Section 2000e(b) counts a worker toward Title VII’s fifteen-employee threshold on any day an employment relationship exists, even if the worker does not work or receive pay that day.

Gerald v. D.C.V. Holdings, Inc. · filed 2021-07-06(b)

An employee is counted under Section 2000e(b) if the employer maintains an employment relationship with him on any given day in a calendar year, regardless of whether the individual works or is compensated on that day. ... Thus, there is a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether Dom’s Trucks met Title VII’s “employer” threshold during some or all of the alleged conduct, even if Plaintiff’s evidence on this point is relatively thin.

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of employer does not make individual supervisors personally liable under Title VII unless they otherwise qualify as employers.

English v. Advanced Auto Parts Store 3200 · filed 2021-07-22(b)

The law is clear that individual supervisors cannot be liable for employment discrimination under Title VII, the ADEA, or the ADA.

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of employer does not make a parish liable for a separate sewerage district’s employee when the parish did not employ her or delegate employment decisions to the district as its agent.

Davis v. Gavin · filed 2021-08-12(b)

For these reasons, the Court finds that the Parish cannot be considered Davis’s employer for purposes of Title VII, and therefore, cannot be held liable to Davis under Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) does not make directors or supervisors personally liable as employers under Title VII.

Griffin v. Skahill · filed 2021-08-25(b)

Not only is Sue Skahill not the named respondent in the EEOC charge, but Title VII does not include directors or supervisors in its definition of “employer” and has declined to impose personal liability against those individuals.

Section 2000e’s definition of employer requires at least fifteen employees; a formal employer may count jointly employed workers toward that threshold.

Delarosa v. Comsource Management, Inc. · filed 2021-08-30(b)

In sum, because Defendant GPIV does not have fifteen employees and cannot be said—based on the Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint—to jointly employ any of Defendant Comsource’s 1,000 employees, Defendant GPIV is not an employer for the purposes of Title VII and FEPA.

Section 2000e defines an employer to include a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees for each working day in twenty or more calendar weeks of the current or preceding year; a Title VII plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendant meets this definition.

Schultz v. Valley View Cheese Company, Inc. · filed 2021-09-02(b)

Title VII defines an “employer” as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e. ... It is clear from the face of the complaint that Shultz fails to allege that Valley View is an employer as defined by Title VII, and dismissal is warranted on this basis.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least 15 employees, and a Title VII complaint must plausibly allege facts showing the defendant meets that threshold.

Mejia v. Ayala · filed 2021-09-02(b)

Title VII’s “15-or-more-employees requirement,” although not jurisdictional, is “the threshold number of employees for application of Title VII [and] is an element of a plaintiff’s claim for relief.” ... The court therefore holds that Mejia has failed to plausibly allege that defendants were her employers within the meaning of Title VII.

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of employer permits a school board to be named as a party when a school district acts as its agent.

Quintana v. Clark County School District · filed 2021-09-16(b)

Given Title VII’s broad definition of “employer,” the Board may bear liability for CCSD’s conduct as the Board’s agent. As CCSD’s principal, and given Title VII’s broad definition of “employer,” the Board may be named as party.

Section 2000e(b)’s 15-employee threshold may be met by counting employees shared by joint employers.

Nag v. Ohio State University · filed 2021-09-22(b)

Additionally, employees working for both joint employers may be aggregated for purposes of establishing the Title VII numerosity requirement.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer to include an agent, but Title VII does not impose individual liability on that agent.

Hebrew v. Gonzalez · filed 2021-10-18(b)

While Title VII defines “employer” to include any agent of the employer, see id. § 2000e(b), the Fifth Circuit does not interpret the statute to impose individual liability on the agent.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer using a fifteen-employee threshold; alleging that the defendant is a Title VII employer is sufficient at the pleading stage.

SHROYER-KING v. MOM-N-POPS LLC · filed 2021-11-01(b)

Alleging that defendant is a Title VII employer is an assertion of fact that is sufficient for pleading, and Plaintiff has adequately averred that defendant was an employer pursuant to Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents in its definition of employer, but an agency theory does not make a company liable for a hiring decision made solely on another company’s behalf.

Vasquez v. Steiner Enterprises Inc · filed 2021-11-02(b)

And thus these facts defeat an agency theory for Steiner’s liability for the hiring decision, because they demonstrate that Hicks (the decisionmaker) did not act as an agent of Steiner in deciding not to hire Vasquez.

Section 2000e(b) excludes an entity with fewer than fifteen employees from Title VII’s employer definition.

Artice v. Epworth Children and Family Services · filed 2021-11-10(b)

Since Little Village did not meet the definition of “employer” under the statute, Little Village was not subject to Title VII.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees for the specified period; sufficiently related businesses may qualify as a single integrated enterprise.

Spiers v. Oak Grove Credit, LLC, Columbia Credit, LLC and Pine Belt Credit, LLC · filed 2021-11-18(b)

As mentioned above, for an employer to be held liable under Title VII, it must satisfy a numerosity requirement; that is, the employer must employ “fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... These factual allegations are specific and address the individual integrated-enterprise prongs. Therefore, Spiers’s amendments regarding her Title VII claim are not futile because her proposed amended complaint states a claim, supported by factual allegations, upon which, if proved, relief can be granted entitling Spiers to proceed to discovery.

Section 2000e(b) does not treat a franchisor as an employer merely because employees believed it controlled their workplace; the franchisor must qualify as their employer or as an agent of their employer.

Ries v. McDonald's USA, LLC · filed 2021-12-06(b)

Title VII does not expressly apply to agents of apparent employers or to an apparent principal of the actual employer.

Section 2000e(b) permits a Title VII claim to proceed at the pleading stage against an owner alleged to be the plaintiff’s employer and to control her employment decisions.

Hylton v. McMahon · filed 2022-01-21(b)

The Court finds that Hylton has placed Chad McMahon on notice that she is suing him under Title VII as an owner and employer.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents as potential employers under Title VII, allowing a benefits fund authorized to act on the employer’s behalf to be sued.

Doe v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania · filed 2022-01-26(b)

In sum, Doe has alleged plausible Title VII and ADA claims against PEBTF as an entity created by the Commonwealth, partially comprised of Commonwealth-appointed members, and sanctioned by the Commonwealth to establish and modify the healthcare policies for Commonwealth employees.

Section 2000e(b)'s employer definition requires an employment relationship supported by remuneration; travel reimbursement generally does not suffice.

Percy v. State of New York (Hudson Valley DDSO) · filed 2022-03-09(b)

Reimbursement is generally not substantial enough to be considered remuneration.

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer’s agents in the definition of employer, allowing liability for their acts under Title VII.

Staub v. Hy-Vee, Inc. · filed 2022-03-18(b)

Under Title VII, Hy-Vee is potentially liable for the act of its officers and employees as the definition of employer includes the employer’s agents under “agency principles.”

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer covered by Title VII as one with at least fifteen employees for twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.

Dubie v. Buffalo Concrete Accessories, Inc. · filed 2022-03-28(b)

Under Title VII, an “employer” is defined as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). ... Therefore, Dubie has not plausibly alleged that Buffalo Concrete had fifteen or more employees for twenty or more weeks of the year and was a covered employer under Title VII.

Section 2000e(b)’s definition of employer permits a claim against a person adequately alleged to be the facility’s owner and employer.

Schellenberger v. Oakwood Ventures · filed 2022-04-27(b)

Thus, rather than a mere employee in a supervisory role, Schellenberger’s complaint adequately alleges individual liability for Rosenblatt as an owner/employer.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees for each working day in twenty or more weeks of the current or preceding calendar year.

Williams v. Kommunikare Therapy, PC · filed 2022-05-05(b)

In sum, because the Complaint does not allege that Defendant KommuniKare ever employed at least fifteen employees and because the Complaint does not contain allegations that plausibly suggest that Defendant KommuniKare and RMS Foods were joint or single employers, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 2000e(b) defines “employer”; an official-capacity Title VII claim against a supervisor is redundant when the employer is already a defendant.

Flowers v. City of Tulsa · filed 2022-05-18(b)

Title VII defines “employer” as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees ... and any agent of such a person....” Id. § 2000e(b). ... Here, Plaintiff has named the City as a defendant. Therefore, the official claims against the individual Defendants are subject to dismissal.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person in an industry affecting commerce with fifteen or more employees.

Jones v. City of St. Louis · filed 2022-06-09(b)

Title VII only provides a remedy against an “employer,” defined as a “person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees.”

Section 2000e(b) includes an employer's agent in the definition of employer.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC · filed 2022-07-26(b)

Dollar General, acting through its agent, Middle Creek Medical Center, is an employer.

An agent counts toward Title VII’s definition of an employer only when the agency relationship covers employment practices.

Davis v. Parish of Caddo · filed 2022-07-26(b)

And because Mrs. Davis has failed to show that any putative agent’s role encompassed employment practices on Caddo’s behalf, we will not disturb the judgment of the district court.

An employer must have at least fifteen employees for twenty or more weeks to meet Title VII's employer definition.

Dubie v. Buffalo Concrete Accessories, Inc. · filed 2022-12-20(b)

Dubie has not plausibly alleged that Buffalo Concrete had fifteen or more employees for twenty or more weeks of the year. She therefore has failed to plead that Buffalo Concrete is an employer within the meaning of Title VII, and her Title VII claim is therefore dismissed.

A Title VII claim must provide enough information about a defendant's employee count to show that Title VII applies.

GARCED v. BAEHR · filed 2023-02-10(b)

In addition, the Complaint does not specify the number of employees who worked for Defendant Akins, and therefore, it is not clear that Title VII applies.

Section 2000e(b) defines an employer as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with at least fifteen employees, or an agent of such a person; the child welfare employees involved in custody proceedings were not the plaintiff’s employers.

NWANI v. DELAWARE COUNTY CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES · filed 2023-02-28(b)

They are not “employers.” Rather, an “employer” is defined as a “person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . and any agent of such a person.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Title VII is simply inapplicable to the claims asserted in the TAC and this claim will be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 2000e(b) requires an employer to have at least fifteen employees to be subject to Title VII.

Schneider v. Trumbull County Veterans Service Commission · filed 2023-03-14(b)

Regarding the application of Title VII, the Court finds as a matter of law that Defendant is not subject to liability under Title VII because it did not have at least fifteen employees at the relevant times to be considered an employer as defined by Title VII.