Riley v. Novosad, 6:18-cv-01123

Background

Plaintiff Cheryl Riley was a midday on-air personality at 94.5 KSMB (employed by Cumulus/Radio KSMB) and alleged supervisors Robert Novosad (Program Director) and Jettison Christopher (Operations Manager) made unwanted sexual comments and otherwise harassed her.
Riley alleges additional workplace harassment linked to her former husband (Rim Pros ads playing during her show) and receipt/disposition of an anonymous malicious package that she wanted for a TPO hearing.
Riley was suspended (with pay) after she recorded a meeting in which Christopher disciplined her for an unauthorized absence; she complained to Cumulus HR and Cumulus investigated and reprimanded several supervisors.
Riley claims she was constructively discharged (or resigned) on October 4, 2016 and filed suit on August 28, 2018 asserting Title VII and multiple Louisiana employment statutes.
Defendants Novosad and Christopher moved to dismiss arguing (1) individual liability is not permitted under Title VII/LA statutes and (2) Riley’s federal and state claims are time-barred; the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and dismissing claims against them with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Individual liability under Title VII/ADEA	Riley asserts supervisors Novosad and Christopher engaged in harassment/retaliation and are liable	Title VII/ADEA do not impose individual liability on supervisory employees; only the employer can be sued	Dismissed — individuals not liable under Title VII/ADEA; plaintiff failed to state a claim against them
2) Individual liability under Louisiana employment statutes (La. R.S. 23:301 et seq., 51:2256, 23:967)	Riley seeks relief against supervisors under state statutes for discrimination/retaliation/whistleblower harms	Louisiana statutes define “employer” as the compensating entity; supervisors are not employers under La. R.S. 23:302	Dismissed — Novosad and Christopher are not alleged to be employers and state-law claims fail to state a claim
3) Exhaustion re: EEOC charge against individuals	Riley filed an EEOC charge (against Cumulus) and later received a Right‑to‑Sue and sued within federal deadlines	No EEOC charge named Novosad or Christopher; Riley did not exhaust administrative remedies against them and did not file within 300 days of the alleged acts	Dismissed — no exhaustion as to individual defendants; Title VII claims against them barred
4) Prescription (statute of limitations) for state claims	Riley filed state claims and an LCHR claim in 2017 and sued in 2018; argues administrative tolling may apply	State claims accrued Oct. 4, 2016; one‑year liberative prescription (with limited tolling) expired before complaint filed Aug. 28, 2018	Dismissed — state claims prescribed and therefore barred

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and factual pleading requirements)
Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) (pleading rules and inference-drawing in Fifth Circuit)
Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 1998) (Title VII actions are against employers, not individuals)
Lewis v. Hardy, [citation="248 F. App'x 589"] (5th Cir. 2007) (clarifying no individual liability under Title VII)
Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2001) (ADEA provides no basis for individual supervisory liability)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (dismissal appropriate when insuperable procedural bar appears on face of complaint)
Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2007) (pleading and dismissal standards)
Nowlin v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 33 F.3d 498 (5th Cir. 1994) (EEOC filing deadlines and requirements)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rules on objections to magistrate reports)