IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 16, 2006
BRIGID DES-OGUGUA, PLAINTIFF
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMILY WHITE, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2006, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 14), to which no objections were filed, recommending the granting of defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) with respect to all of plaintiff's claims*fn1 except her Title VII claim against defendant Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development ("Department") and her Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA") claim against defendant Emily White ("White"),*fn2 and, following an independent review of the record, the court finding that plaintiff's state tort and § 1981*fn3 claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, see 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 5524 (establishing a two-year statute of limitations for state tort claims), that White may not be held liable under Title VII because she is an individual employee rather than an employer, see Le v. Univ. of Pa., 321 F.3d 403, 409 n.3 (3d Cir. 2003) (noting that "Congress did not intend to hold individual employees liable under Title VII"), and that the Department may not be held liable under the PHRA*fn4 because of its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, see Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98 (noting that a state agency cannot be sued in federal court without its consent); Laskaris v. Thornburgh, 661 F.2d 23, 25-26 (3d Cir. 1981) (same); see also 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 8521(b) (withholding consent to suit in federal court), it is hereby ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED as follows:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's state tort and § 1981 claims against all defendants, as well as plaintiff's Title VII claim against White and PHRA claim against Department. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
2. The motion is dismiss (Doc. 7) is otherwise DENIED.
3. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge