or discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment. ... Id. An "employer” is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) as a "person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees. ..." Id. An "employee" is simply "an individual employed by an employer....” Id. at § 2000e(f). 13 . Plaintiff acknowledged in his deposition that he has never been an employee of the Greater Southeast. See Dep. of Plaintiff, p. 481. 14 . Courts in other jurisdictions that have confronted this issue have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital, 853 F.2d 762 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1013, 109 S.Ct. 1123, 103 L.Ed.2d 186 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Beverley v. Douglas, 591 F.Supp. 1321, 1328
holding that allegations of employer retaliation are properly governed by title vii and cannot support a claim under  1983 holding that an employee does not forfeit his title vii right of action if he first seeks relief under an arbitration clause in his collective bargaining agreement holding that as a matter of law plaintiffs allegations that the hospital interfered with his relationships with his patients fail to state a claim for relief under title vii holding title vii claim against western electric not frivolous as a matter of law holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original