St. John v. Au Bon Pain, 1:17-cv-02456

Pro se plaintiff Lars St. John sued Au Bon Pain and 17 individual employees alleging federal (Title VII, §1981, First and Fourteenth Amendment) and multiple Ohio state-law claims (harassment, sexual harassment, libel/slander, wrongful termination/retaliation).
The district court originally dismissed St. John’s Title VII and §1981 claims and his First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit vacated the dismissal as to Au Bon Pain (preserving the Title VII/§1981 and related state-law claims against the corporate defendant) but affirmed dismissal of federal claims against the individual coworkers/supervisors (they are not "employers" under Title VII) and affirmed dismissal of First and Fourteenth Amendment claims (private actors).
On remand the only federal claim remaining in this action is Title VII against Au Bon Pain; no federal claims remain against the individual defendants.
The magistrate judge recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(4) over the disparate state-law claims against the 17 individuals because of exceptional circumstances and considerations of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and therefore recommended dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice and terminating the individual defendants; plaintiff’s discovery/reinstatement motion was denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the 17 individual defendants	St. John sought to retain/continue state-law claims in federal court (and move to reinstate two defendants)	Federal claims against individuals were dismissed on appeal; supplemental jurisdiction should be declined due to complexity and comity concerns	Decline supplemental jurisdiction under §1367(c)(4); dismiss state-law claims without prejudice
Whether individual coworkers/supervisors can be sued under Title VII/§1981	St. John asserted Title VII/§1981 claims against coworkers/supervisors	Coworkers/supervisors are not "employers" and are not subject to suit under Title VII	Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of federal claims against individual defendants (coworkers/supervisors not liable under Title VII)
Whether Plaintiff’s motion to produce documents and reinstate two defendants is meritorious	Sought production and reasons for termination and reinstatement of two defendants	Termination of individual defendants follows appellate ruling; motion is moot if individuals are dismissed	Motion denied as moot

Wathen v. Gen. Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 1997) (coworkers and supervisors are not "employers" under Title VII and thus not subject to suit under that statute)
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (district courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 in appropriate circumstances)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (procedural rule that failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report may waive the right to appeal)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (same; consequences of failing to timely file objections to magistrate recommendations)