PARIS
v.
CITY OF CORAL GABLES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Individual capacity suits under Title VII and the FHRA are inappropriate, and claims based on McKinney v. Pate cannot withstand dismissal.
Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Coral Gables and James H. Butler. The defendants moved to dismiss various counts of the complaint.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
HIGHSMITH, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants City of Coral Gables and James H. Butler’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II as to Defendant Butler and Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV in Their Entirety, filed June 27,1994.
With regard to Counts I and II, the law of the Eleventh Circuit is clear: individual capacity suits under Title VII are inappropriate.
Busby v. City of Orlando,
931 F. 2d 764, 772 (11th Cir.1991);
Amy Dickinson v. Dan McCarty, et al.,
1994 WL 706979 (S.D.Fla. Aug. 1, 1994). Moreover, because federal case law under Title VII is applicable to claims filed under the Florida Human Rights Act (“FHRA”), § 760.10, Florida Statutes, individual capacity claims under the FHRA are likewise inappropriate.
See Florida Dept. of Community Affairs v. Bryant,
586 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Hence, the Court shall dismiss Counts I and II as to Defendant James H. Butler only.
As to Counts III and IV, the plaintiff concedes that, based on the authority of
McKinney v. Pate,
20 F. 3d 1550 (11th Cir.1994), these claims cannot withstand dismissal. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Counts I and II of the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant James H. Butler only; and Counts III and IV are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in their entirety.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Speedway Superamerica, LLC v. Dupont, 933 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…Blockbuster Entm't Corp., 139 F. 3d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir.1998); Carter v. Am. Online, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 n. 3 (M.D.Fla.2001); Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 65 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1343 (M.D.Fla.1999); Paris v. City of Coral Gables, 951 F.Supp. 1584, 1585 (S.D.Fla.1995); Kelly v. K.D. Constr. of Fla., Inc., 866 F.Supp. 1406, 1411 (S.D.Fla.1994). . The portion quoted remains unchanged.…
-
Patterson v. Consumer Debt Mgmt. & Educ., Inc., 975 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…Elec. Co., 115 F. 3d 400 (6th Cir.1997). The federal district courts in Florida have followed the Eleventh Circuit and found no liability for individual employees/supervisors of corporate employers under Title VII. See Paris v. City of Coral Gables, 951 F.Supp. 1584 (S.D.Fla.1995); Blount v. Sterling Healthcare Group, Inc., 934 F.Supp. 1365 (S.D.Fla.1996). In both Paris and Blount, the court not only held that Title VII does not permit individual liability, but also that the FCRA does not per [*1292] mit it. Mo…
-
Harper v. Blockbuster Ent. Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998)…Bal Harbour Club, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1005, 1009 (Fla.1989); Florida State Univ. v. Sondel, 685 So. 2d 923, 925 n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1996); Gray v. Russell Corp., 681 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996); see also Paris v. City of Coral Gables, 951 F.Supp. 1584, 1585 (S.D.Fla.1995); Kelly v. K.D. Construction of Fla., Inc., 866 F.Supp. 1406, 1411 (S.D.Fla.1994). No Florida court has interpreted the Florida statute to impose substantive liability where Title VII does not. Therefore, for the same reasons…
Authorities Cited
- Busby v. City OF Orlando, 931 F.2d 764 (11th Cir. 1991)
- United States v. Gates, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Fla. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)