as a practical matter and, as a matter of law, insufficient to state a claim. Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 363 (2d Cir.1987). It is with this standard in mind that the Court addresses the issues presented. III. Plaintiffs claims under Title VII Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs Title VII claims, in their entirety, against the individual defendants, and, in part, against the Dormitory Authority. Turning to the individual defendants, the Complaint seeks to hold nine current or former employees of the Dormitory Authority liable under Title VII. However, as defendants correctly argue, and plaintiff now concedes, “individual defendants with supervisory control over a plaintiff may not be held personally liable under Title VII.” Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, plaintiffs Title VII claims
holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original holding that there is no individual liability under title vii holding individual defendants are not an employer within meaning of title vii holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii