No Individual Liability under Title VII, First Circuit Rules

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston has ruled that supervisors may not be held individually liable for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Fantini v. Salem State College, No. 07-2026 (1st Cir. Feb. 23, 2009).  Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  Although Title VII’s definition of “employer” includes “any agent” of an employer, the Court found that Congress did not intend to impose individual liability; rather, Congress meant only “to import respondeat superior liability into Title VII.”  In so ruling, the Court joined the Courts of Appeals for the nine other Circuits in holding that individuals may not be held liable under Title VII. (The First Circuit has jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island.)

The plaintiff, Marianne Fantini, was the Director of General Accounting for the employer.  In 2001, Fantini took a leave of absence due to a breakdown allegedly caused by a hostile work environment.  While she was on leave, her employer hired an independent accounting firm to audit its cash reconciliations and General Ledger account.  These previously had been handled by the plaintiff.  The audit showed, among other things, incomplete and incorrect cash reconciliations. The employer decided to terminate the plaintiff’s employment for poor performance as a result. 

Fantini sued the employer and several individual supervisors for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, among other things.  The individual defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them, and the district court granted the motion.  The plaintiff appealed.

Addressing the issue of individual liability, the Court reviewed Title VII’s overall statutory scheme.  First, the Court noted that Title VII only applies to employers with 15 or more employees.  Congress included the 15-person requirement because it wanted to protect small entities from the costs associated with litigating discrimination claims.  Since Congress decided to protect small entities from liability, it was “inconceivable”, according to the Court, that Congress intended to allow civil liability to run against individual employees. 

Second, some of Title VII’s remedies, such as back pay and reinstatement, can only be obtained from employing entities, not individuals. 

Third, when Congress amended Title VII in 1991 to expand the remedies available, it tied the size of any compensatory and punitive damage awards to the employer’s size.  Congress did not include an amount for cases where a plaintiff seeks to hold an individual liable. 

Accordingly, the Court concluded that Congress intended only employers to be liable for Title VII violations, holding that individual liability may not be imposed under Title VII, and affirming the dismissal of the Title VII claims against the individual defendants.

While individual supervisors may be helped by this decision in cases alleging federal Title VII violations, they nevertheless may continue to be subject to liability under state, commonwealth or local anti-discrimination laws, even in areas covered by the First Circuit.  For example, in Rhode Island, individual supervisors may be held liable for violations of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act and the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act.  Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims as part of federal Title VII litigation.  Accordingly, employers should train their supervisors regularly on preventing discrimination and harassment in the workplace, not only to avoid corporate liability, but to avoid individual liability, as well.