Opinion
Case No. 01-2373-JWL.
March 27, 2002.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed suit against defendant Choicepoint Services, Inc., three individuals, and Choicepoint's Board of Directors alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. On January 28, 2001, this court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint against the individual defendants, including the Board of Directors. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that order (doc. #50). The request is denied.
As the court noted in its order, plaintiff's complaint is premised exclusively on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Title VII makes it unlawful for an "employer" to "refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The court dismissed the individual defendants in light of Tenth Circuit precedent holding that individuals are not "employers" for purposes of Title VII liability. See Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 901 (10th Cir. 1996).
In her motion for reconsideration, plaintiff relies on the plain language of the definition of "employer" found in a variety of statutory contexts-definitions that include "persons" within the meaning of "employer." See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (defining "employer" as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce. . . .) (emphasis added). The Tenth Circuit, however, has repeatedly rejected the arguments made by plaintiff and has done so in the face of the precise statutory language relied upon by plaintiff. See Haynes, 88 F.3d at 901; accord Butler v. City of Prairie Village, Kansas, 172 F.3d 736, 744 (10th Cir. 1999) (reaffirming Haynes decision in context of ADA). Moreover, this court is required to follow the rules of law set forth by the Tenth Circuit. See United States v. Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 709 n. 2 (10th Cir. 1990). Thus, the Haynes decision dictates the outcome of plaintiff's motion and mandates the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants. Plaintiff's only hope for relief on this issue is to present her arguments concerning individual liability to the Tenth Circuit if and when she has the opportunity for an appeal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (doc. #50) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.