Paris v. City of Coral Gables

S.D. Florida

Paris v. City of Coral Gables

951 F. Supp. 1584, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21385, 1995 WL 908603

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 1995

Docket94-0930-CIV

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 951 F. Supp. 1584 (Paris v. City of Coral Gables) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paris v. City of Coral Gables, 951 F. Supp. 1584, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21385, 1995 WL 908603 (S.D. Fla. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

HIGHSMITH, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants City of Coral Gables and James H. Butler’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II as to Defendant Butler and Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV in Their Entirety, filed June 27,1994.

With regard to Counts I and II, the law of the Eleventh Circuit is clear: individual capacity suits under Title VII are inappropriate. Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir.1991); Amy Dickinson v. Dan McCarty, et al., 1994 WL 706979 (S.D.Fla. Aug. 1, 1994). Moreover, because federal case law under Title VII is applicable to claims filed under the Florida Human Rights Act (“FHRA”), § 760.10, Florida Statutes, individual capacity claims under the FHRA are likewise inappropriate. See Florida Dept. of Community Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Hence, the Court shall dismiss Counts I and II as to Defendant James H. Butler only.

As to Counts III and IV, the plaintiff concedes that, based on the authority of McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir.1994), these claims cannot withstand dismissal. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Counts I and II of the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant James H. Butler only; and Counts III and IV are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in their entirety.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

HIGHSMITH, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants City of Coral Gables and James H. Butler’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II as to Defendant Butler and Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV in Their Entirety, filed June 27,1994.

With regard to Counts I and II, the law of the Eleventh Circuit is clear: individual capacity suits under Title VII are inappropriate. Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir.1991); Amy Dickinson v. Dan McCarty, et al., 1994 WL 706979 (S.D.Fla. Aug. 1, 1994). Moreover, because federal case law under Title VII is applicable to claims filed under the Florida Human Rights Act (“FHRA”), § 760.10, Florida Statutes, individual capacity claims under the FHRA are likewise inappropriate. See Florida Dept. of Community Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Hence, the Court shall dismiss Counts I and II as to Defendant James H. Butler only.

As to Counts III and IV, the plaintiff concedes that, based on the authority of McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir.1994), these claims cannot withstand dismissal. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Counts I and II of the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant James H. Butler only; and Counts III and IV are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in their entirety.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

951 F. Supp. 1584, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21385, 1995 WL 908603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paris-v-city-of-coral-gables-flsd-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack