individual capacities — as well as MVSU. Before turning to the merits of Plaintiffs Title VII allegations, the Court first discusses whether Plaintiffs Title VII claims may proceed against both parties. A. Title VII Claims Against the Individual Defendants Plaintiff seeks to impose individual liability under Title VII against both Morris and Sanders. While Title VII defines “employer” to include any agent of the employer, the Fifth Circuit does not interpret the statute to impose individual liability on the agent. See Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc., 164 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir.1999); Chehl v. Southern Univ. and Agric. and Mech. Coll, 34 Fed.Appx. 963 (5th Cir.2002) (“Title VII does not impose personal liability on individuals.”); Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Clanton v. Orleans, Parish Sch. Bd., 649 F.2d
holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii holding that only employers not individuals acting in their individual capacity who do not otherwise meet the definition of employers can be held liable under title vii holding individual employees may be liable under title vii holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii