Frazier v. Radio Shack Corporation
3:10-cv-00855
M.D. La.Feb 2, 2012Background
- Frazier, pro se, worked for RadioShack from Dec 19, 2003, to June 3, 2008.
- He alleges age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by RadioShack, and by district manager Jasper Green and others.
- Plaintiff claims he was treated differently from similarly situated employees, faced excessive leave requirements, long hours, and denied promotions to younger workers.
- He filed age discrimination and retaliation complaints with RadioShack Employee Relations in 2008.
- He alleges FMLA, ADA, LEDL, and Title VII claims, plus punitive damages, against RadioShack and individual defendants Day and Romero.
- The court grants Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of claims against Day and Romero, finding no individual liability under these statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Day and Romero can be liable as employers under LEDL | Frazier alleges Day and Romero acted as employers. | Day and Romero are individual employees, not employers under LEDL. | Granted; LEDL claims against Day and Romero fail. |
| Whether Title VII liability can attach to individuals | Plaintiff seeks liability for individual actions under Title VII. | Title VII claims may not be asserted against individuals; only employers liable via respondeat superior. | Granted; claims against Day and Romero under Title VII dismissed; only employer vicarious liability remains. |
| Whether ADEA/ADA claims survive against individuals | Plaintiff asserts age and disability discrimination against individuals. | ADEA/ADA do not permit individual liability. | Granted; ADEA and ADA claims against Day and Romero dismissed. |
| Whether FMLA claims may be asserted against individuals | Plaintiff maintains an FMLA claim against individuals who controlled employment actions. | FMLA liability rests on an employer; individuals require nexus and control. | Granted; FMLA claims against Day and Romero dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackel v. National Communications, Inc., 339 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (individuals cannot be liable under Title VII)
- Donovan v. Grim Hotel Co., 747 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1984) (employer liability under FMLA requires control nexus)
- Stultz v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996) (ADEA/ADA lack of individual liability)
- Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co, Inc., 238 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2001) (ADEA/ADA no individual liability)
- Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999) (Rule 12(b)(6) standards and pleadings guidance)
- Lefall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 1994) (pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 1995) (motion to dismiss; pleading sufficiency)