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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-