Miriam J. Jiggetts v. David Sharpe

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1286
MIRIAM J. JIGGETTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAVID SHARPE; MICHELLE COLLINS; ROBIN KESSLER;
AMERICAN FUNDS GROUP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-04-634-2)
Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 16, 2005
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Miriam J. Jiggetts, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Smith Goodwyn, James
Richard Theuer, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*By this disposition, we indicate no view regarding whether
Jiggetts in fact properly exhausted her administrative remedies,
leaving resolution of this question to the district court.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Miriam J. Jiggetts appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice her complaint filed under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Virginia Human Rights
Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Individuals cannot be held liable for employment
discrimination under the ADEA. See Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting
Corp., 30 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that individual
employees are not proper defendants in ADEA lawsuits). We
therefore affirm the dismissal of the complaint as to Defendants
David Sharpe, Michelle Collins, and Robin Kessler on the district
court’s alternate reasoning that individual liability does not
attach under the ADEA.
Because Jiggetts has produced evidence before this court
suggesting that she timely filed a charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and thus properly exhausted her
administrative remedies, we vacate the dismissal as to Defendant
American Funds Group (“AFG”) and remand to the district court to
evaluate Jiggetts’ exhaustion evidence. * We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --