Opinion
Civil Action No: SA-05-CA-689-XR.
October 17, 2005
ORDER
On this date the Court considered Defendant Jeff Callender's motion to dismiss (docket no. 7). Callender seeks dismissal from Plaintiff's Title VII claim arguing that individual supervisors are not liable under that Act. Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 652 (5th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff concedes that point, but argues instead that dismissal at this time is inappropriate because she is arguing that Callender is a partner in the partnership that owns the restaurant where she was employed.
The fact that Callender may control the operations of the restaurant and may be a partner in the partnership is insufficient, standing alone, to impose individual liability upon him under Title VII. Humphreys v. Medical Towers, Ltd., 893 F. Supp. 672, 688 (S.D. Tex. 1995).
Plaintiff further argues that the "single employer" theory may be applicable to the restaurant at issue. Because this case is at an early stage of discovery and questions remain regarding the joint venture contract that controls the restaurant's operations, the Court will DENY the motion to dismiss at this time, without prejudice to refiling at an appropriate time. Humphreys, 893 F. Supp at 689 (Humphreys was hired by MTL, a limited partnership and was originally employed as an administrative assistant to Lawson, who was her supervisor. Lawson is the president and sole shareholder of Diva Corporation, which, in turn, is the general and managing partner of MTL. The Court held that fact issues exist as to whether Lawson conducted himself, not in an individual capacity but as a general partner of MTL. The Court further held that fact issues existed as to whether Diva is the alter ego of Lawson.).