Title VII permits employees to sue their employers for discriminatory employment actions. See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enter., Inc., 519 U.S. 202, 205, 117 S.Ct. 660, 136 L.Ed.2d 644 (1997); Oden v. Oktibbeha Cnty., 246 F.3d 458, 465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,534 U.S. 948, 122 S.Ct. 341, 151 L.Ed.2d 258 (2001); accord Baldwin v. Layton, 300 Fed.Appx. 321, 322 (5th Cir.2008) (citing Ackel v. Nat'l Commc'ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376, 382 n. 1 (5th Cir.2003)). “[I]t is well-settled that an employee-employer relationship is an absolute prerequisite to claims filed pursuant to Title VII.” Johnson v. Crown Enters., Inc., 294 F.Supp.2d 850, 854 (M.D.La.2003), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds,398 F.3d 339 (5th Cir.2005); see also Roque v. Jazz Casino Co. LLC, 388 Fed.Appx. 402, 405 (5th Cir.2010); Deal v. State Farm Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 5 F.3d 117, 118 n. 2 (5th Cir.1993).
Title VII permits employees to sue their employers for discriminatory employment actions. See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enter., Inc., 519 U.S. 202, 205 (1997); Oden v. Oktibbeha Cnty., 246 F.3d 458, 465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 948 (2001); accord Baldwin v. Layton, 300 F. App'x 321, 322 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Ackel v. Nat'l Commc'ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376, 382 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003)). "[I]t is well-settled that an employee-employer relationship is an absolute prerequisite to claims filed pursuant to Title VII."
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct 2605, 2617 n. 5 (2008) (quoting 11 CHARLES A. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE PROCEDURE § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995)). "A Rule 59(e) motion is not a 'vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment' but instead has a 'narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'" Baldwin v. Layton, 300 F. App'x 321, 323-24 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479). B. Analysis
, individual liability under the ADA is similarly limited. Provensal v. Gaspard, 524 Fed.Appx. 974, 977 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 653 (5th Cir. 1994)); Baldwin v. Layton, 300 Fed.Appx. 321, 323 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see also Knox-Colburn v. Daniel Healthcare, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-44-DMB-DAS, 2023 WL 150005, at *3-4 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 10, 2023) (“individuals are not held liable under Title I of the ADA”).
To start, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has “repeatedly rejected any individual liability under Title VII.'' Baldwin v. Layton, 300 Fed.Appx. 321, 323 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see also Provensal v. Gaspard, 524 Fed.Appx. 974, 977 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)
The Fifth Circuit “has repeatedly rejected any individual liability under Title VII.” Baldwin v. Layton, 300 Fed.Appx. 321, 323 (5th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases).
The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly rejected individual liability under Title VII. See Baldwin v. Layton, 300 Fed.Appx. 321, 323 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Ackel v. Natl'l Commc'ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376, 382 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003)) (“Individuals are not liable under Title VII in either their individual or official capacities.”); Smith v. Amedisys, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 448 (5th Cir. 2002) (“This circuit has held that there is no individual liability for employees under Title VII.”). Moreover, under Title VII, a private plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies by timely filing a charge with the EEOC and receiving a right-to-sue notice before seeking relief from the Court.
(citing Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 653 (5th Cir. 1994)). The Fifth Circuit has “repeatedly rejected any individual liability under Title VII.'' Baldwin v. Layton, 300 Fed.Appx. 321, 323 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). And Xia does not otherwise allege that Martinez was her statutory employer.
The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly rejected individual liability under Title VII. SeeBaldwin v. Layton , 300 Fed.Appx. 321, 323 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Ackel v. Natl'l Commc'ns, Inc. , 339 F.3d 376, 382 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003)) ("Individuals are not liable under Title VII in either their individual or official capacities."); Smith v. Amedisys, Inc. , 298 F.3d 434, 448 (5th Cir. 2002) ("This circuit has held that there is no individual liability for employees under Title VII.").
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has “repeatedly rejected any individual liability under Title VII.'' Baldwin v. Layton, 300 Fed.Appx. 321, 323 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). And individual liability under the ADEA and the ADA is similarly limited.