Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09CV-626-H.
February 25, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff JerryHamblen filed this pro se, employment-discrimination action against his supervisors, Elaine Adkins and Frank Daughtery. By prior Order, the Court dismissed this case for failure to name the Postmaster General as a defendant. The Court's opinion was based on its belief that Plaintiff was employed by the United States Postal Service. The Plaintiff has now written a letter to the Court (DN 10) that the Court construes as a motion to reconsider. In his motion to reconsider, Plaintiff explains that the Court incorrectly read his complaint to state that he was employed at the United States Postal Service, when in fact, his employment was with the United Parcel Service. Therefore, Plaintiff contends that the Court should not have dismissed his complaint for failure to name the Postmaster General.
Plaintiff is correct that the Court misread his complaint. However, the Court will not reopen this action because the law is the same. A plaintiff may not sue a supervisor under Title VII. See Wathen v. Gen'rl Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 406 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that individual supervisors are not "employers" and therefore not liable under Title VII). A Title VII claim must name the entity that employed the plaintiff and not the individual employees that the plaintiff maintains were responsible for the discrimination. In this case, Plaintiff clarifies that he was employed by the United Parcel Service. Thus, that entity is the proper party, not the individuals sued by Plaintiff. Because it would be futile to reopen this action, Plaintiff's motion to reconsider (DN 10) is DENIED. However, the Court INSTRUCTS Plaintiff that he is free to refile this action naming the proper party.