L'Heureux v. Whitman ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion











    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ____________________



    No. 97-1115


    GERTRUDE GOROD,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, ET AL.,

    Defendants, Appellees.

    ____________________


    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge] _____________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
    Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________

    ____________________

    Gertrude Gorod on brief pro se. ______________
    Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, Richard H. Spicer and Lucy _________________ __________________ ____
    A. Wall, Assistant Attorneys General, on brief for appellees. _______


    ____________________

    OCTOBER 9, 1997
    ____________________















    Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Gertrude Gorod commenced __________ ___ __

    this action against the Department of Employment and Training

    (DET) and several of its employees seeking relief under Title

    VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and the

    Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621

    et seq.1 The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims 1

    against the DET as a sanction for failing to comply with

    numerous discovery orders. Plaintiff's claims against the

    other defendants had been previously dismissed on the ground

    that employees cannot be liable in their individual

    capacities under Title VII or the ADEA.

    Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties'

    briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not

    abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's claims against

    the DET. See Valentine v. Museum of Modern Art, 29 F.3d 47, ___ _________ _____________________

    48 (2d Cir. 1994). We need not decide whether the court's

    ruling dismissing the individual defendants was correct, for

    it is clear that had this ruling not been entered, these

    claims would have been dismissed along with plaintiff's

    claims against the DET. Plaintiff's persistent refusals to

    comply with the district court's discovery orders provides

    independent justification for the dismissal of her claims

    against the individual defendants. Plaintiff's contention


    ____________________

    1The individual defendants are Nils Nordberg, Doreen 1
    Gately, Anna McKeon and John Marra.

    -2-













    that the district court erred in denying her motions to

    sanction defense counsel is wholly meritless.

    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

    summarily affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1. ________ ___













































    -3-






Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1039

Filed Date: 10/10/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015