232 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2000)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wrighten v. Glowski

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Nov 15, 2000

232 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2000)

Summary

holding that the plaintiff's Title VII claims against the individual defendants were "properly dismissed . . . because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII" (citing Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995))

Summary of this case from Bahr v. City Univ. of N.Y.

See 25 Summaries

Opinion

Docket No. 00-7192.

Argued: October 27, 2000.

Decided: November 15, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Dominic J. Squatrito, J.

James F. Wrighten, pro se, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard D. O'Connor, Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff Zangari, P.C., Hartford, CT (George J. Kelly, Jr., of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: OAKES, WINTER, and SACK, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, and appeal dismissed in part.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from a January 19, 2000 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Squatrito, Judge) dismissing several of the plaintiff's claims and finding in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims after a bench trial.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff, an African-American man who had worked in the New London school district as a substitute teacher and a tutor, alleges that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race and gender by failing to assign him students to tutor in 1997 and by refusing to grant him an educational assistant position in 1997. The plaintiff brought suit in 1998 under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the New London Board of Education and two individual employees of the school district. In a joint trial memorandum submitted shortly before trial, the plaintiff asserted additional claims under the Federal Vocational Rehabilitation Act (FVRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court dismissed several of the plaintiff's claims, and after a bench trial on January 18, 2000, granted judgment for the defendants on the remaining claims.

DISCUSSION

We affirm the district court's judgment with respect to the claims it dismissed, and we dismiss the appeal with respect to the claims it decided in the defendants' favor after trial. First, the district court's dismissal of the FVRA, ADA, and ADEA claims was not an abuse of discretion because the claims were not asserted until shortly before trial. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (noting that undue delay and undue prejudice to the opposing party are grounds for denying a motion for leave to amend a complaint). The district court also properly dismissed the Title VII claims against Glowski and Paluck, because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII. See Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995).

With respect to the plaintiff's challenges to the district court's findings and conclusions on the remaining claims, we dismiss this appeal with prejudice because the plaintiff failed to provide this Court with the trial transcripts needed to conduct meaningful appellate review, despite two extensions of time and advice from this Court to move in the district court for trial transcripts. Rule 10(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure imposes on the appellant the duty to order trial transcripts. The rules further provide that "[i]f the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion." Fed.R.App.P. 10(b)(2). The plaintiff's failure to provide these transcripts deprives this Court of the ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. We therefore dismiss the portion of the appeal challenging the district court's post-trial findings and conclusions. See Fed.R.App.P. 3(a)(2); Meroney v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp., 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir. 1994); 16A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice Procedure § 3956.1 n. 6 (3d ed. 1999) (collecting cases).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED in part and the appeal is DISMISSED in part.

Summaries of

Wrighten v. Glowski

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Nov 15, 2000

232 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2000)

Summary of this case from Bahr v. City Univ. of N.Y.

holding that plaintiff's Title VII claims against individual defendants were "properly dismissed . . . because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII" (citing Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995))

Summary of this case from Ortiz v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union

holding that plaintiff's Title VII claims against individual defendants were “properly dismissed ... because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII” (citing Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir.1995))

Summary of this case from [REDACTED] v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Admin.

Summary of this case from Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Admin.

holding that there is no individual liability under Title VII

Summary of this case from Briggs v. New York State Department of Transportation

finding that individual defendants may not be personally liable under Title VII

Summary of this case from Quattrone v. Boces

finding individuals are not liable under Title VII

Summary of this case from Simpson v. New York State Department of Civil Service

ruling individual Defendants are not subject to Title VII liability

Summary of this case from Guerra v. Jones

ruling individual Defendants are not subject to Title VII liability

Summary of this case from BROWN v. RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF SUNY

affirming district court's dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants because "individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII"

Summary of this case from Costabile v. N.Y. Dist. Council of Carpenters

affirming dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants "because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII"

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Cnty. of Nassau

affirming dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants, "because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII"

Summary of this case from Zagaja v. Vill. of Freeport

affirming dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants, “because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII”

Summary of this case from Reid v. Ingerman Smith LLP

affirming dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants, "because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII"

Summary of this case from Reid v. Ingerman Smith LLP

affirming dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants, "because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII"

Summary of this case from Saunders v. Lupia

dismissing portion of appeal with prejudice where pro se appellant failed to provide this Court with the trial transcripts needed for meaningful appellate review

Summary of this case from United States v. Weber

dismissing with prejudice the portion of an appeal challenging certain post-trial findings and conclusions "because the [pro se] plaintiff failed to provide this Court with the trial transcripts needed to conduct meaningful appellate review, despite two extensions of time and advice from this Court to move in the district court for trial transcripts"

Summary of this case from Gilmore v. Fitzmaurice

dismissing portion of the appeal with prejudice where "plaintiff failed to provide this Court with the trial transcripts needed to conduct meaningful appellate review"

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Rizzitelli

dismissing portion of appeal with prejudice because relevant transcripts were not provided "despite two extensions of time"

Summary of this case from Hines v. Veterans Outreach Ctr. Inc.

dismissing the portion of the appeal challenging post-trial findings because transcripts from those proceedings were not provided

Summary of this case from Chepilko v. City of N.Y.

dismissing the portion of the appeal challenging post-trial findings because transcripts from those proceedings were not provided

Summary of this case from Singh v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

dismissing the portion of the appeal challenging post-trial findings because transcripts from those proceedings were not provided

Summary of this case from Singh v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

dismissing the portion of the appeal challenging post-trial findings because transcripts from those proceedings were not provided

Summary of this case from Ventura v. Sinha

dismissing the appeal

Summary of this case from Hill v. Melvin

noting that individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII

Summary of this case from Scott-Adams v. H&M

Wrighten v. Glowski

Summary

Opinion

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

Wrighten v. Glowski

Wrighten v. Glowski

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Wrighten v. Glowski

Summary

Opinion

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

Wrighten v. Glowski

Wrighten v. Glowski

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations