Mikell v. The Cutting Edge Elite Inc.
1:15-cv-07273
S.D.N.Y.Sep 28, 2016Background
- Plaintiff (former employee of Cutting Edge) sued alleging discriminatory conduct and sought to add two individuals (Luis Mendieta and Nathan Perry/Lucas) as defendants.
- Complaint filed Sept. 15, 2015; defendants answered June 24, 2016; plaintiff moved July 1, 2016 to amend to add the individuals.
- Defendants opposed and moved to dismiss claims against individual employee Jeremy Waldon.
- Core legal question: whether individual employees (Waldon, Mendieta, Lucas/Perry) may be held liable under Title VII or whether liability is limited to the employer (Cutting Edge).
- Court applied Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards and Rule 15 amendment standards, considering futility and whether proposed defendants could be liable under Title VII.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual employee (Waldon) is liable under Title VII | Plaintiff sought relief naming Waldon as a defendant | Defendants: Title VII imposes liability only on employers, not individual employees | Dismissed Waldon — individuals not liable under Title VII |
| Whether proposed individual owners/co‑founders (Mendieta, Lucas/Perry) can be added as Title VII defendants | Plaintiff moved to amend to add Mendieta and Lucas/Perry as defendants | Defendants: proposed individuals are not the employer; amendment would be futile | Motion to amend denied as futile — individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII |
| Whether amendment should be freely granted under Rule 15 | Plaintiff requested leave to amend; relied on liberal amendment policy | Defendants argued futility and opposed amendment | Amendment denied due to futility (proposed claims could not survive 12(b)(6)) |
| Standard for evaluating motion to dismiss/amend | Plaintiff relied on pro se liberal pleading rules | Defendants relied on established pleading and Title VII precedent | Court applied Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards; construed pro se pleadings liberally but still required viable Title VII defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Raspardo v. Carlone, 770 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2014) (Title VII does not create individual liability for supervisors)
- Carris v. First Student, Inc., 132 F. Supp. 3d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (employers, not individuals, liable under Title VII)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (Rule 15 leave to amend generally favored)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co., 404 F.3d 566 (standards for denying leave to amend)
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (district court discretion on amendments)
- Dougherty v. Town of North Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83 (amendment futile if claim could not survive 12(b)(6))