Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-311, Section: "R" (5).
November 3, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
The defendants move the Court to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against Maureen Eames. The plaintiff does not oppose the motion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 30, 2003, Melissa Navarre sued Entergy Corporation, her former employer, and Maureen Eames, her supervisor at Entergy, for race discrimination under Title VII, section 1981, and Louisiana law. The defendants removed to this Court. On October 12, 2004, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) to dismiss Eames from the action. The defendants argue that Navarre has no cause of action against Eames under Title VII, section 1981, or Louisiana law.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is subject to the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Thomason v. Nachtrieb, 888 F.2d 1202, 1204 (7th Cir. 1989) ("[A] motion for judgment on the pleadings is subject to the same standard as a motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim."); Davis v. City of Baldwyn, 2000 WL 994469, at *2 (N.D. Miss. July 7, 2000). Therefore, the Court views the pleadings in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant. Youngblood v. Bender, 2000 WL 1059782, at *1 (E.D. La. July 31, 2000). If it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the nonmovant can plead or prove no set of facts that would entitle her to relief, the Court may grant judgment on the pleadings. See id.
B. Analysis
Navarre sued both Entergy and her supervisor at Entergy, Maureen Eames. A plaintiff cannot maintain a suit against both her employer and her supervisor under Title VII. Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc., 164 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 1999). See also Seal v. Gateway Companies, Inc., 2001 WL 1018362, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 4, 2001); Norwood v. City of Hammond, 1999 WL 777713, at *4 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 1999). Likewise, when a plaintiff sues her employer under both Title VII and section 1981 for the same conduct, she cannot maintain a cause of action against her supervisor under section 1981. Huckaby v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233, 241 (5th Cir. 1998). This is because Title VII supplies the underlying substantive right. Id. Therefore, Navarre has no cause of action against Eames under either Title VII or section 1981.
Similarly, a plaintiff cannot sue her supervisor for employment discrimination under Louisiana law. See Galbreth v. Bellsouth Communications, Inc., 896 F.Supp. 631, 633 (E.D. La. 1995) (noting that Louisiana courts typically look to federal law in applying the Louisiana antidiscrimination statutes, and finding that the plaintiff had no cause of action against his supervisor for employment discrimination under Louisiana law); Seal, 2001 WL 1018362, at *2 (same); Norwood, 1999 WL 777713, at *4 (same). Therefore, Navarre has no cause of action against Eames under state law.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.