for partial summary judgment dismissing the Title VII claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. DISCUSSION 1. Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss The individual defendants contend that plaintiffs claims against them should be dismissed on the ground that there is no individual liability under Title VII or the ADA. I agree. It is well-established in the Second Circuit that individuals may not be held personally liable under Title VII. Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir.2000); Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 74-75 (2d Cir.2000); Cook v. Arrowsmith Shelburne, Inc., 69 F.3d 1235, 1241 (2d Cir.1995); Tomka v. Seiler, 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir.1995). The same is true under the ADA. Corr v. MTA Long Island Bus., 199 F.3d 1321, 1999 WL 980960 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Bliss v. Rochester City Sch. Dist.,
holding that there is no individual liability under title vii holding that rule 54b applies when plaintiffs theory of recovery against one defendant is largely subsumed by its theory of recovery against the other defendant even though there was no formal joint liability holding there was no individual liability under titles i ii or iii of the ada holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada holding that there is no individual liability under law 44