by the Court; namely, which Defendants are subject to personal liability. The Court finds as a matter of law that Pittman’s claims in Count I of his Complaint can only be brought against CVCC. The individual defendants, Principal Rybak and Superintendent Schlachter, have valid defenses against liability for Pittman’s race discrimination claims. An individual employee or supervisor, who does not otherwise qualify as a statutory “employer” for purposes of federal civil rights law, may not be found personally liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wathen v. General Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 405 (6th Cir.1997); see also Czupih v. Card Pak Inc., 916 F.Supp. 687, 689-91 (ND.Ohio 1996). Courts have found that supervisors, even when the law could consider the (6th Cir.1999)(<HOLDING>). In summary, Pittman is allowed to proceed
holding that a takings claim was barred under the eleventh amendment where state courts provided a means of redress for such claims holding that the eleventh amendment applies in  1981 litigation recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment holding that the department of corrections was entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from suit under section 1981