reasonable inferences are jury functions, not those of a judge deciding a motion for summary judgment. Id. ANALYSIS Burgess’ Liability Defendants argue that the plaintiffs claims against Burgess must be dismissed because individual officers of an employer cannot be held accountable under either the ADA or the ADEA. The Seventh Circuit recently held in United States Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd., 55 F.3d 1276, 1280-82 (7th Cir.1995), that supervisory employees, in their individual capacities, do not meet the statutory definition of “employer” as used under the ADA, and therefore they cannot be held hable for discrimination claims brought pursuant to those statutes. See also Matthews v. Rollins Hudig Hall Co., 72 F.3d 50, 52 n. 2 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552, 553 (7th
holding that disparate impact claims are not cognizable under the adea holding no individual liability under the adea holding that supervisors are not personally hable as employers under the adea either holding that supervisors were not hable because they possessed no information indicating a strong likelihood of unconstitutional conduct by their subordinate holding that claims under the adea and the nyshrl are subject to the same analysis