E.D. Cal. Notes Circuit Split re Whether Individuals Can be Liable under ADA Title V
Per Louie v. Carichoff, 2006 WL 662742 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2006):
There currently is a split among the circuits as to whether individuals can be liable under Title V of the ADA. Compare Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161, 1179-80 (11th Cir.2003)(holding that an individual may be sued in his personal capacity for violating § 12203) with Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 472 (4th Cir.1999) (holding that Congress did not intend individuals to be liable under § 12203). The Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue in a published opinion and district courts within this circuit are split on the matter. Compare Cable v. Dep't. of Dev. Servs. of the State of Cal., 973 F.Supp. 937, 943 (C.D.Cal.1997)("individuals cannot be held liable under Title V of the ADA") and Stern v. California State Archives, 982 F.Supp. 690, 691 (E.D.Cal.1997)("the court holds that individuals who do not qualify as 'employers' are not subject to personal liability under section 12112(a)" with Ostrach v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 957 F.Supp. 196, 200 (E.D.Cal.1997) ("[p]laintiff may sue the individual defendants under the anti-retaliation provision of the ADA").
Nonetheless, even if the Ninth Circuit were to determine that individuals can be held liable under § 12203(a) and (b), the court finds that the actions allegedly engaged in by defendants Carichoff and Coleman do not fall within the "retaliation," "coercion," "intimidation," "threats," or "interference" contemplated by Congress in enacting § 12203.