From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bonomolo-Hagen v. Holmquist

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Aug 15, 1997
121 F.3d 446 (8th Cir. 1997)

Summary

holding that there is no individual liability under Title VII

Summary of this case from Leighton v. Madison Cent. Sch. Dist. #39-2

Opinion

No. 97-3174

Submitted July 21, 1997

Filed August 15, 1997

Counsel who represented the appellant was Stephen F. Avery of Spencer, Iowa.

Counsel who represented the appellee was Patricia K. Wengert of Des Moines, Iowa and Charles F. Knudson of Marcus, Iowa.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.


The District Court, applying precedent from the Northern District of Iowa, and observing that our Court had not yet definitively resolved the question, held that as the plaintiff's supervisor defendant David Holmquist could be held individually liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, the District Court denied Holmquist's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Title VII claims against him, but certified the question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §(s) 1292(b), thus permitting Holmquist to seek an interlocutory appeal.

Holmquist's petition for permission to appeal is granted, and the District Court's denial of Holmquist's motion to dismiss is reversed. Our Court quite recently has squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII. See Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank, No. 96-2951, slip op. at 3 (8th Cir. July 21, 1997). Thus the question left open in Lenhardt v. Basic Institute of Technology, Inc., 55 F.3d 377 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that under the Missouri Human Rights Act individual liability may not be imposed on supervisors), has been resolved.

Spencer establishes the law of our circuit. We therefore reverse and remand for entry of an order granting Holmquist's motion to dismiss.


Summaries of

Bonomolo-Hagen v. Holmquist

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Aug 15, 1997
121 F.3d 446 (8th Cir. 1997)

holding that there is no individual liability under Title VII

Summary of this case from Leighton v. Madison Cent. Sch. Dist. #39-2

holding that supervisors may not be found individually liable under Title VII

Summary of this case from Lyons-Belisle v. Am. Wholesale Florists of Kansas City, Inc.

holding that the Eighth Circuit "has squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII"

Summary of this case from Welcher v. Davis Nursing Association

finding that the law of the Eighth Circuit was established in Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank which "squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII"

Summary of this case from Crock v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

recognizing that, like coworkers, supervisors cannot be held individually liable under Title VII

Summary of this case from Steffy v. Brown

explaining that "supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII"

Summary of this case from Ivy v. Saint Louis Cmty. Release Ctr.

explaining the Eighth Circuit has "squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII"

Summary of this case from Caruso v. City of St. Louis

reiterating that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Arkansas Department of Correction

stating "Spencer establishes the law of our circuit."

Summary of this case from Widmar v. City of Kansas City
Case details for

Bonomolo-Hagen v. Holmquist

Case Details

Full title:Karilyn Bonomolo-Hagen, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Clay Central-Everly…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Aug 15, 1997

Citations

121 F.3d 446 (8th Cir. 1997)

Citing Cases

Lovett v. Mercy Rehab Hosp. St. Louis

The Court further noted that Title VII only provides a remedy against an employer. Id. at 5 (citing…

Lovett v. Mercy Rehab Hosp. St. Louis

The Court further noted that Title VII only provides a remedy against an employer. ECF No. 11 at 5 (citing…