Stat. ¶ 4.) 2 . See, e.g., De Graffenried Depo. at 182-83, "Clearly, the character of the work had changed, so there is not a direct comparability between the type of work that is performed by a grade 3 under a monopoly status quo situation and the type of work that's required in this time period and today. It’s far more intensive.... So her review here is in the context of a lot more work per capita, and this was how she performed in that context.” 3 . The complaint is unclear as to whether plaintiff is suing Hiney, Pellegrino, and De Graffenried under Title VII. Since individual defendants cannot be held personally liable under Title VII, I read the complaint as alleging a Title VII violation only against Power Authority. See Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Plaintiff was promoted to economist in
holding that an employer alone is liable for a violation of title vii by supervisory employees holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii holding individual employees may be liable under title vii holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding that individual defendants with supervisory control over plaintiff cannot be held personally liable under title vii