made the alleged comment. In his subsequent affidavit, dated January 25, 1999, Plaintiff attributes the alleged statement to Garner. In his Complaint, however, filed October 10, 1997, Plaintiff alleges that the Principal made the comment. 8 . At the outset, the Court finds that, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking relief for the harassing phone calls at home and for "stalking" behavior outside the workplace, summary judgment in favor of the employer is warranted. Under the particular facts of this case, the Court knows of no obligation upon the employer to monitor the activities of its employees outside of the workplace. Indeed, the clear intent of Title VII is to combat discrimination in the workplace. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th
recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii holding that title vii was designed to assure equality of employment opportunities holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii