L'Heureux v. Whitman

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-