Concord Community Schools Lawsuit

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 1 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROBYN CHIDDISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL
CORPORATION, WAYNE STUBBS
and TIM TAHARA in their individual
capacities,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:15-cv-00301
DEFENDANTS, CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION,

WAYNE STUBBS AND TIM TAHARAS
ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND JURY DEMAND
Defendants, Concord Community School Corporation and Wayne Stubbs and Tim
Tahara in their individual capacities, by counsel, answer Plaintiffs Complaint as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1.
This action concerns unequal pay due to gender, failure to promote and hire on the basis
of gender, and retaliation brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq., and the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, by a former Secretary to the
Director of Transportation and Director of Building Facilities against Defendants.
ANSWER:
Objection. No allegations are set forth against these defendants in

paragraph one (1) of the Plaintiffs Complaint. Therefore, no answer is
necessary.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs federal claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph two (2) of

Plaintiffs Complaint.
3.
Venue is proper under 29 U.S.C. 139(b)(2) because a substantial part of the conduct
giving rise to the claims took part in this judicial district.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that venue is proper in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division; the
defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph three (3) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
PARTIES
4.
Plaintiff ROBYN CHIDDISTER is a citizen of the United States. She worked as the
Secretary to the Director of Transportation and Director of Building Facilities for Defendant
Concord Community School Corporation until her termination on or about August 15, 2011.
Throughout her employment, Ms. Chiddister was an employee within the meaning of Title
VII.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that Robyn Chiddister was employed at the Concord
Community School Corporation (hereinafter CCSC) , that she was an
employee within the meaning of Title VII, and that she was employed
briefly as a secretary in the CCSC Department of Transportation,
including as secretary to the Director of the Department of Transportation.
The defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph four (4) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
5.
Defendant CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, also known as
Concord Community Schools (Concord or the District), is a public school district serving
Elkhart, Indiana. Throughout the relevant time, the District was an employer within the
meaning of Title VII.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that CCSC is a public school corporation. The

defendants note that the correct defendant is the School Board of Trustees
for the Concord Community School Corporation. The defendants deny
the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph five (5) of
6.
At all relevant times, Defendant WAYNE STUBBS was the Districts Superintendent
and chief executive officer of the District. Mr. Stubbs is sued in his individual capacity.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit Mr. Stubbs was the superintendent of CCSC. The
defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph six (6) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
7.
At all relevant times Defendant TIM TAHARA was the Districts Assistant
Superintendent. Mr. Tahara is sued in his individual capacity.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit Mr. Tahara was the assistant superintendent of

CCSC. The defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in
rhetorical paragraph seven (7) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
FACTS
8.
Ms. Chiddister began working for the District in or about September 2009 as a
paraprofessional in the English as a Second Language (ESL) Department at Ox Bow
Elementary School, one of the Districts schools.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that CCSC hired Chiddister as a part-time classroom

paraprofessional in September 2009. The defendants deny the remaining
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph eight (8) of Plaintiffs
Complaint.
9.
In or about May 2010, Ms. Chiddister began training for the position of Secretary to the
Director of Transportation and Director of Building Facilities (the Secretary position).
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph nine (9) of

10.
In or about August 2010, she began working fulltime in the Secretary position and was
paid $12.80 per hour.
ANSWER:
Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth or

falsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph ten (10) of
Plaintiffs Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at this time.
11.
Since in or about May 2010, Ms. Chiddister also worked on preparing to be the Districts
next Director of Transportation after her boss retired, and familiarized herself with virtually
every aspect of the job.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eleven (11) of

12.
Ms. Chiddister met or exceeded the Districts legitimate performance expectations at all
times.
ANSWER:
Objection. Rhetorical paragraph twelve (12) of Plaintiffs Complaint

improperly assumes that Chiddister was terminated. Without waiving said
objection, the defendants deny the allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph twelve (12) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
The District Fails to Hire Ms. Chiddister for the Director Position Due to her Gender
13.
In or about February 2011, the Director of Transportation announced his retirement
effective at the end of the 2010-2011 school year.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirteen (13) of

14.
On or about February 21, 2011, Ms. Chiddister applied for the Director of Transportation
position.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fourteen (14) of

Plaintiffs Complaint. The defendants admit that Chiddister applied for
the position of Director of Safety and Transportation, but are without
knowledge as to the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph fourteen (14) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
15.
On or about April 13, 2011, Ms. Chiddister was interviewed by an eleven-member team
composed of ten men and one woman.
ANSWER:
16.

falsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph fifteen (15) of
Plaintiffs Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at this time.
The interview team also interviewed two other women and one man, Rich Matteson.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph sixteen (16) of

17.
During Ms. Chiddisters interview, the interviewers made several comments such as
people might have a hard time taking her seriously because she was too nice and just a
secretary.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventeen (17) of

18.
In response, Ms. Chiddister told the interview team that she was overqualified for her
Secretary position (she had been the Treasurer and Office Manager for her familys business for
fifteen years before working for Respondent) and that she had taken the Secretary position to
get her foot in the door.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eighteen (18) of

19.
Other than the teams gender-based comments, Ms. Chiddisters interview for the
Director position went very well.

ANSWER: Objection. Rhetorical paragraph nineteen (19) of Plaintiffs Complaint
improperly assumes that gender-based comments were made during the interview. In addition,
the use of very well is non-factual and impossible to respond to. Without waiving said
objections, the defendants admit that Chiddister was asked to return for a second interview.
20.
After the interviews the interview team voted that she was the most qualified candidate
for the Director of Transportation position and stated that her name would be forwarded to the
Superintendent.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty (20) of

21.
On or about April 16, 2011, Assistant Superintendent Tim Tahara (male) informed Ms.
Chiddister that she would have to participate in a second interview, and that she was one of the
two candidates remaining under consideration.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that Chiddister was asked to give a second

interview. The defendants are without information as to the remaining
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twenty-one (21) of Plaintiffs
Complaint.
22.
On or about April 26, 2011, Ms. Chiddister interviewed with Mr. Tahara, Superintendent
Wayne Stubbs (male), Director of Technology Dick Pyle (male), and Assistant Superintendent
Kevin Caird (male).
ANSWER:

falsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-two (22)
of Plaintiffs Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at this
time.
23.
During the second interview, when asked what she would like to accomplish during her
first ninety days as Director Ms. Chiddister set forth her ninety-day action plan.
ANSWER:

falsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-three (23)
time.
24.
During the second interview, the interviewers repeated the gender-based question of
whether people would take a nice secretary seriously as Director. They also asked whether she
would quit or stay on to help the new Director if she did not get the position.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-four (24) of

25.
Ms. Chiddister was taken aback by these questions and simply responded that she had
been effectively performing most of the Directors duties during the past several months in
addition to her regular secretarial duties, and was willing to help where needed.
ANSWER:
Objection. Rhetorical paragraph twenty-five (25) of Plaintiffs Complaint

improperly assumes the truth of the allegations contained therein. It also
requires the defendants to speculate as to Chiddisters state of mind.
Without waiving said objections, no allegations are set forth against these
defendants; therefore, no answer is necessary.
26.
On or about April 29, 2011, Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara informed Ms. Chiddister that
although she was more than qualified for the position and they knew she would do a wonderful
job as Director, were going to go in another direction.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-six (26) of

27.
They further stated they hoped she would continue doing the good work she was doing
because the new Director was going to need her help. They also told her that they knew
transportation had grown tremendously during the past couple of years and they hoped to be able
to better compensate her for all the work she did.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-seven (27)

of Plaintiffs Complaint.
28.
On or about May 2, 2011, the District announced that Rich Matteson had been selected as
the new Director of Transportation. Mr. Matteson had no experience in school transportation.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that on May 2, 2011, CCSC selected Mr. Matteson
to become the Director of Safety and Transportation. The CCSC is
without sufficient information to be able to admit or deny the remaining
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twenty-eight (28) of
29.
Since he had no transportation experience, Mr. Matteson was not qualified for the
Director position. In contrast, since Ms. Chiddister had already been performing virtually every
aspect of the Director job, she was qualified.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-nine (29) of

30.
Ms. Chiddister later found out that after hiring Mr. Matteson, the District renamed the
Director position to Director of Transportation and Safety to make it appear as if he was, in
fact, qualified for the position.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty (30) of

31.
On or about May 3, 2011, Ms. Chiddister complained to Mr. Caird that the District had
engaged in gender discrimination in hiring the unqualified Mr. Matteson instead of her and the
other two women who were interviewed for the position.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-one (31) of

32.
Mr. Matteson was so under-qualified that he had to ask Ms. Chiddister to teach him how
to perform his job. In or about late-May 2011, he told her that he was not good with
computers and asked her to help him with the bus routing software.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-two (32) of

33.
Mr. Matteson also asked Ms. Chiddister to give him her ninety-day action plan which she
had discussed during her second interview. He further told her that he and Mr. Tahara knew
nothing about school transportation and would be relying on her to teach them during the
summer before school started in the fall.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-three (33) of

The District Retaliates Against Ms. Chiddister for Complaining About Discrimination by
Firing Her
34.
On or about June 2, 2011, Ms. Chiddister turned in her letter of resignation. A few days
later, Mr. Tahara asked her to take back her resignation.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-four (34) of

Plaintiffs Complaint. The defendants admit that on June 3, 2011,
Chiddister resigned. The defendants deny the remaining allegations
contained in rhetorical paragraph thirty-four (34) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
35.
Ms. Chiddister complained to Mr. Tahara that the District had hired an unqualified man
for the Director position and that she was being relied upon to train him.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-five (35) of

36.
Ms. Chiddister also complained that she was overworked, underpaid, and not
compensated for all of the overtime hours she had to work, and reiterated that she could not work
under those conditions.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-six (36) of

37.
Mr. Tahara stated that he agreed that she was underpaid and overworked, and that
something had to be done about it. He further stated that nothing could be done about her
compensation until January 2012, but at that time hopefully she would be given a raise.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-seven (37) of

38.
Ms. Chiddister informed Mr. Tahara that she would withdraw her resignation and think
about it.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-eight (38) of

39.
The next day, Ms. Chiddister e-mailed Mr. Tahara and asked him if he would put his
assurances about her compensation in writing.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-nine (39) of

40.
He called her the next night and told her that the District would not be able to put their
plans for her in writing, and that if she had to resign, he hoped she would give them sufficient
notice to train Mr. Matteson and find her replacement. Ms. Chiddister responded that she would
let Mr. Tahara know before school started in the fall.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty (40) of

41.
Ms. Chiddister worked through June 10, 2011, the last day of the school year for her
position. Two weeks later, Mr. Matteson called her and asked if she would work every
Wednesday that summer until she was called back fulltime on August 8, 2011. Since her family
needed the income, she agreed.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-one (41) of

42.
In July 2011, Mr. Matteson asked Ms. Chiddister if she would return early to fulltime on
July 26, 2011 because he needed her help. Since her family needed the income, she agreed.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-two (42) of

43.
In late July 2011, Ms. Chiddister learned that the Secretary position at Ox Bow
Elementary School had been posted. She was pleased that the position would enable her to leave
the Transportation Department, so she applied for it. She further emailed the Principal of Ox
Bow and told him she was very interested in returning to the school.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that a secretarial position at Ox Bow Elementary

was posted on July 19, 2011. The defendants are without sufficient
information as to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in
rhetorical paragraph forty-three (43) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
44.
Soon after she applied for the position, Mr. Matteson told her he had just discussed with
Superintendent Stubbs the fact that they were planning on giving her a pay raise before the
school year started.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-four (44) of

45.
Ms. Chiddister questioned how that would be possible given that Mr. Tahara had
informed her that all raises had to go through the Board of Education and that this could not be
done until January.
ANSWER:
Objection. Rhetorical paragraph forty-five (45) of Plaintiffs Complaint is

objectionable because it improperly assumes the truth of the allegations
contained therein. Without waiving said objection, the defendants deny
the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph forty-five (45) of
46.
Mr. Matteson responded that he knew Ms. Chiddister was underpaid given the amount of
work she had to do, including running the routing program. He further requested that she keep
the pay raise a secret between the two of us.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-six (46) of

47.
A few days later, the Principal of Ox Bow called Ms. Chiddister to see if she would
interview on August 1, 2011.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-seven (47) of

48.
Approximately an hour later, Mr. Tahara called Mr. Matteson on his speaker phone and
asked if he was alone. Mr. Matteson then closed his office door.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-eight (48) of

49.
A few minutes later, Mr. Matteson opened his door, looked at Ms. Chiddister sternly, and
told her he needed to see her in his office.
ANSWER:
50.
him.
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-nine (49) of

Mr. Matteson told her to close the door and asked if there was anything she wanted to tell
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty (50) of

51.
He then told her that he knew she had applied for the Ox Bow position and wanted to
know why she did not tell him about it. He then showed her an e-mail from Mr. Tahara with a
list of the interviewees for the position and said, take a look, heres your competition.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-one (51) of

52.
Ms. Chiddister responded that she kept her job application to herself because she did not
want a confrontation about it and that she needed a job. She then asked whether this was why
Mr. Tahara had just called him, and Mr. Matteson responded that it was.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-two (52) of

53.
Ms. Chiddister then asked whether Mr. Tahara was going to call the Principal of Ox Bow
and tell him not to hire her. Mr. Matteson responded that the Principal doesnt care who he
pisses off, so I doubt Tim [Tahara] calling him will do anything, but it might help.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-three (53) of

54.
Ms. Chiddister became upset and asked Mr. Matteson whether Mr. Tahara had also called
the other applicants bosses to tell them to harass their employees too, or whether it was just her.
Mr. Matteson laughed and said Mr. Tahara had probably just finished calling Ox Bows
Principal.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-four (54) of

55.
Ms. Chiddister then asked Mr. Matteson how he received the Director position without
having any transportation experience, since the first interview team had submitted her name for
the position. He started laughing and stated that his name had been submitted, and not hers.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-five (55) of

10
56.
Mr. Matteson further stated that he had received the Director position before the second
interview, and that the District had just given Ms. Chiddister the second interview to be nice.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-six (56) of

57.
Ms. Chiddister then commented that he must have either gotten the Director position
because he was a man or because he was friends with the administrators, or both. Mr. Matteson
responded, Im not friends with them.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-seven (57) of

58.
During the next several days, Ms. Chiddister continued to work into the night attempting
to get the routes ready for the school year with little or no assistance from Mr. Matteson, who
was frequently out of the office.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-eight (58) of

59.
On or about August 12, 2011, Ms. Chiddister asked Mr. Matteson to skip a lunch out of
the office to help out as the work was piling up and they were going to be hard-pressed to get the
routes done by the start of the school year.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-nine (59) of

60.
Ms. Chiddister reiterated that too much was being expected of her with not enough time
to do it and that she had still not received an answer about overtime pay. Mr. Matteson
responded, oh well, if they [the routes] dont get done, then they dont get done. If they wont
pay you overtime, I cant do anything to help you.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty (60) of

61.
On or about August 13, 2011, Ms. Chiddister told Mr. Matteson that she did not think she
could continue working under those conditions. She further stated that she was tired of feeling
used, harassed, and lied to about raises and overtime pay just to keep her working longer. She
also specifically stated that she did not deserve to have her opportunity with Ox Bow interfered
with by Mr. Tahara.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-one (61) of

11

62.
Mr. Matteson responded with a comment to the effect of I dont blame you, I wouldnt
do as much work as you do for $13 an hour. He then stated he would talk to Mr. Tahara to see
what could be done, and left the office.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-two (62) of

63.
About an hour later, Mr. Matteson sent Ms. Chiddister a text message stating, I need
your letter of resignation by Monday. That Monday morning, he sent her another text message
demanding her resignation letter by noon.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-three (63) of

64.
Ms. Chiddister then received a voicemail from Mr. Tahara asking her what she planned to
do. She left him a voicemail to call her, but he never called back. Her employment ended that
day.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-four (64) of

65.
The District fired Ms. Chiddister in retaliation for her complaining about gender
discrimination with respect to the Districts hiring of Mr. Matteson over the more qualified
female applicants.
ANSWER:
66.
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-five (65) of

Even though she was qualified, Ms. Chiddister did not receive the Secretary position.
ANSWER:
The Defendants admit in paragraph sixty-six (66) of Plaintiffs Complaint

that Chiddister was not awarded the secretarial position at Ox Bow
Elementary. The defendants deny that Chiddister was more qualified for
the position than the person who obtained the position.
67.
The District failed to hire Ms. Chiddister for the Ox Bow Secretary position in retaliation
for her complaining about gender discrimination.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-seven (67) of

68.
On or about August 18, 2011, Ms. Chiddister was contacted by a teacher at Ox Bow
School. The teacher told her that the Principal had authorized her to offer Ms. Chiddister a
paraprofessional position in her classroom for the 2011-2012 school year.
12
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-eight (68) of

69.
Ms. Chiddister responded that she doubted Mr. Tahara would allow her to take the
position. The teacher stated the Principal would call Mr. Tahara the next day to make sure and
that she would call her back to let her know everything was a go.
ANSWER:

falsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-nine (69)
time.
70.
On or about August 21, 2011, the teacher called Ms. Chiddister back and said she had
some bad news. She said she had spoken to the administration and had to withdraw the offer.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy (70) of

71.
Even though she was qualified, Ms. Chiddister did not receive the Paraprofessional
position.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that CCSC did not hire Chiddister for a
paraprofessional position at Ox Bow. The defendants deny the remaining
allegations, including the implicit allegations, contained in rhetorical
paragraph seventy-one (71) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
72.
The District failed to hire Ms. Chiddister for the Ox Bow Paraprofessional position in
retaliation for her complaining about gender discrimination.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-two (72) of

The District Gives Ms. Chiddister Unequal Pay for Equal Work
73.
During her time as Secretary, the District paid Ms. Chiddister $12.80 per hour.
ANSWER:

falsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-three
(73) of Plaintiffs Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at
this time.
74.
In addition to her secretarial duties, Ms. Chiddister performed virtually all of the duties of
the Director of Transportation.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-four (74) of

13
75.
After her termination, the District immediately tasked five or more bus drivers with
routing the district and paid them $17-plus per hour and also rehired a former employee and a
representative from the bus routing software company to assist. Ms. Chiddister previously
performed those duties.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-five (75) of

76.
Ms. Chiddister was more qualified than these employees, but the District paid her less for
equal work, performed under equal conditions, because of her gender, female.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-six (76) of

The District Further Retaliates Against Ms. Chiddister After She Filed an EEOC Charge
77.
On or about October 25, 2011, Ms. Chiddister filed a Charge of Discrimination against
the District with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as
well as the Indiana Civil Rights Commission.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-seven (77)

78.
Ms. Chiddisters Charge alleged that the District underpaid her and failed to pay her
overtime because of her gender, failed to hire her/promote her to the Director of Transportation
position due to her gender, and retaliated against her by terminating her employment and failing
to hire her for the Ox Bow Secretary and Paraprofessional positions.
ANSWER:
79.
The defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-eight

(78) of Plaintiffs Complaint that the charge included charges for gender
discrimination and retaliation, but deny there were any allegations in the
charge concerning failure to pay overtime or underpaid her.
Subsequently, the EEOC engaged in an active investigation of Ms. Chiddisters Charge.

ANSWER:

paragraph seventy-nine (79) of the Plaintiffs Complaint. Therefore, no
answer is necessary.
80.
On or about June 20, 2013, Ms. Chiddister reapplied for the Director of Transportation
and School Safety position which had once again become vacant.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that Chiddister sent a letter expressing an interest in

the position. The defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in
rhetorical paragraph eighty (80) of the Plaintiffs Complaint.
14
81.
The District declined to interview Ms. Chiddister even though she had been one of the
two finalists for the position when she first applied for it in 2011.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-one (81) of

82.
On or about July 15, 2013, the District instead hired the Secretary to the Director of
Transportation and Director of Building Facilities, the position Ms. Chiddister had held when she
first applied for the Director position in 2011.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-two (82) of

83.
In or about July 2013, Ms. Chiddister applied for her previous position, the vacant
Secretary to the Director of Transportation and Director of Building Facilities position.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-three (83)

84.
Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara instructed the new Director not to interview or hire Ms.
Chiddister for the Secretary position she had held previously. Instead, another less-qualified
applicant was subsequently hired.
ANSWER:
85.
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-four (84) of

Ms. Chiddister was well-qualified for both the Director and Secretary positions.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that Chiddister was qualified for the positions for
which she applied, but deny that she was as well qualified as the persons
who obtained the positions and further deny the remaining allegations
contained in rhetorical paragraph eighty-five (85) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
86.
The District failed to hire her for both positions because she had complained internally
about gender discrimination and filed a Charge of Discrimination against it with the EEOC.
Accordingly, on or about August 23, 2013, Ms. Chiddister filed a second Charge of gender
discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit that Chiddister filed a second charge of retaliation;

the defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph eighty-six (86) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
87.
As a result of the Districts actions, Ms. Chiddister has suffered and continues to suffer
loss of income, other economic damages, emotional distress, and has been forced to expend
attorneys fees and costs.
15
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-seven (87) of

COUNT I (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):
UNEQUAL PAY IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
88.
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 0 as if fully
set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Defendants reincorporate by reference its responses to paragraphs 1

through 87 as above of Plaintiffs Complaint.
89.
Ms. Chiddister filed timely charges with the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. The EEOC made
a merits determination in her favor on her 2011 Charge finding that the evidence supported her
claims that the District failed to promote her to the Director position and failed to hire her at Ox
Bow School in violation of Title VII. The EEOC also made a merits determination on her 2013
Charge finding reasonable cause to believe that the District failed to hire her for the Director and
Secretary positions in 2013 in violation of Title VII.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-nine

(89) of Plaintiffs Complaint that Chiddister filed multiple charges with
the EEOC and further that the EEOC found in Chiddisters favor. The
defendants deny that all of the allegations contained in her complaint were
submitted for review by the appropriate administrative entity, and the
defendants deny that Chiddister exhausted the required administrative
process before filing this complaint on all of her charges.
90.
After exhausting her administrative remedies, including receiving a Notice of Right to
Sue from the U.S. Department of Justice, Ms. Chiddister timely filed this lawsuit. (Attached
hereto as Exhibit 1).
ANSWER:
The defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety (90) of
Plaintiffs Complaint that Chiddister received a Notice of Right to Sue
from the United States Department of Justice and that suit was timely filed
on some of her charges. The defendants deny the remaining allegations
set forth in paragraph ninety (90) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
91.
While serving in the Secretary position, Ms. Chiddister also performed
virtually all of the duties of the Director position, in addition to her regular duties.
Nonetheless, the District only paid Ms. Chiddister $12.80 per hour and did not pay her overtime.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-one (91) of

16

92.
After Ms. Chiddisters termination, the District used at least five bus drivers in addition
to a former employee and a representative from the bus routing software company (the
replacement employees) to perform her job.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-two (92) of

93.
In contrast to Ms. Chiddisters $12.80/hour rate of pay, the District paid these bus drivers
$17-plus per hour.
ANSWER:
94.
job.
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-three (93) of

Ms. Chiddister was more highly-qualified than the replacement employees to perform the
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-four (94) of

95.
The jobs performed by Ms. Chiddister and the replacement employees required equal
skill and were performed under equal conditions.
ANSWER:

falsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-five (95)
time.
96.
Nonetheless, the District paid Ms. Chiddister substantially less than the replacement
employees because of her gender, female.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-six (96) of

97.
The Districts conduct violated Title VII and was carried out in reckless disregard of Ms.
Chiddisters federally-protected rights.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-seven (97) of

98.
As a result of the Districts actions, Ms. Chiddister suffered, and continues to suffer, loss
of income, emotional distress, and has been forced to expend attorneys fees and costs.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-eight (98) of

COUNT II (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):
17
FAILURE TO HIRE/PROMOTE IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

99.
Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 0 and 89
through 90 as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:

through 87 and 89 through 90 as above of Plaintiffs Complaint.
100. Even though Ms. Chiddister was qualified for the Director position, the District awarded
it to the sole male candidate who interviewed.
ANSWER:
The defendants admit in paragraph one hundred (100) of Plaintiffs

Complaint that Richard Matteson is male and he received the position of
Director of Safety and Transportation. The defendants deny the remaining
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph one hundred (100) of
101. The male candidate who received the position was completely unqualified and indeed,
the District required Ms. Chiddister to train the successful male candidate on how to perform his
job.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred one
(101) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
102. The District made negative gender-based comments during Ms. Chiddisters interviews,
further establishing that the reason the District failed to award the Director position to Ms.
Chiddister was because of her gender, female.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred two
103. The Districts conduct violated Title VII and was carried out in reckless disregard of Ms.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred three
104. As a result of the Districts actions, Ms. Chiddister suffered, and continues to suffer, loss
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred four
COUNT III (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):
18
RETALIATION (TERMINATION) IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

105. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 0 and 89
ANSWER:

106. After the District failed to hire/promote Ms. Chiddister for the Director position, she
engaged in protected activity by complaining to her supervisor, Rich Matteson, and to Mr. Caird
that she believed she and the other female applicants had not received the Director position
because of their gender, female.
ANSWER:
107.
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred six
In retaliation for her complaints, the District terminated Ms. Chiddisters employment.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred seven
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred eight
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred nine
COUNT IV (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):

RETALIATION (FAILURE TO HIRE FOR OX BOW SECRETARY AND
PARAPROFESSIONAL POSITIONS) IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
ANSWER:

111. After the District failed to hire/promote Ms. Chiddister for the Director position, she
engaged in protected activity by complaining to her supervisor, Rich Matteson, and to Mr. Caird
19
that she believed she and the other female applicants had not received the Director position
because of their gender, female.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred eleven
112. In retaliation for her complaints, the District failed to hire her for both the Ox Bow
School Secretary position and the Ox Bow School Paraprofessional position, even though she
was qualified for both positions.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred twelve
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred

thirteen (113) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
ANSWER:

fourteen (114) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
COUNT V (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):

RETALIATION (FAILURE TO HIRE FOR 2013 DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY
POSITIONS) IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
ANSWER:

116. In retaliation for Ms. Chiddisters internal complaints of gender discrimination and filing
her EEOC Charge of Discrimination, the District failed to hire her for both the 2013 Director
position and the 2013 Secretary position, even though she was qualified for both positions.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred sixteen
20
ANSWER:

seventeen (117) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
ANSWER:

eighteen (118) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
COUNT VI (AGAINST STUBBS AND TAHARA):

SEX DISCRIMINATION/FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT/
EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION
(FAILURE TO HIRE FOR 2013 DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY POSITIONS)
119. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 87 as if
fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:
120.

At all relevant times, Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara were acting under color of state law.
ANSWER:

falsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred
twenty (120) of Plaintiffs Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the
same at this time.
121. Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara intentionally discriminated against Ms. Chiddister in
connection with her applications for the Director and Secretary positions in 2013 because she is a
woman who had complained about gender discrimination, thereby violating her Equal Protection
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ANSWER:

twenty-one (121) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
122. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendants actions, Ms. Chiddister suffered, and
continues to suffer, loss of income, emotional distress, and has been forced to expend attorneys
fees and costs.
ANSWER:
123.

twenty-two (122) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
Ms. Chiddister may enforce her Equal Protection rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
21
ANSWER:

paragraph one hundred twenty-three (123) of the Plaintiffs Complaint.
Therefore, no answer is necessary.
COUNT VII (AGAINST STUBBS AND TAHARA):

RETALIATION (FAILURE TO HIRE FOR 2013 DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY
POSITIONS)/FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION
124. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 87 as if
fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:

125. Ms. Chiddisters internal complaints of gender discrimination and Charges filed with the
EEOC addressed matters of public concern and therefore were constitutionally-protected speech.
ANSWER:
Objection. Rhetorical paragraph one hundred twenty-five (125) of the

Plaintiffs Complaint improperly assumes the truth of the matters asserted
therein. Without waiving said objection, the defendants deny the
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph one hundred twenty-five
(125) of the Plaintiffs Complaint.
126. Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara, acting under color of state law, intentionally retaliated
against Ms. Chiddister in connection with her applications for the Director and Secretary
positions in 2013 because she had engaged in protected speech.
ANSWER:

twenty-six (126) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
127. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendants actions, Ms. Chiddister suffered, and
continues to suffer, loss of income, emotional distress, and has been forced to expend attorneys
fees and costs.
ANSWER:
128.

twenty-seven (127) of Plaintiffs Complaint.
Ms. Chiddister may enforce her First Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
ANSWER:

paragraph one hundred twenty-eight (128) of the Plaintiffs Complaint.
Therefore, no answer is necessary.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
22
Tahara, by counsel, in further answer to and for their affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs state as
follows:
1.
The Plaintiffs claims are barred to the extent that she has failed to exhaust all of
the administrative prerequisites to filing suit on all of her claims.
2.
The Plaintiff may not have timely filed suit with respect to all of her claims.
Therefore, those claims are barred.
3.
The Plaintiffs claims are barred to the extent that she has failed to attach a copy
of the written documents upon which her claim is based to the Complaint.
4.
The allegations in the Complaint fall outside the scope of the administrative
charges.
5.
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
Defendant(s) and, as such, the Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed.
6.
The Complaint fails because the Defendants did not engage in the alleged
discriminatory or retaliatory acts. All actions of Defendants were taken for
legitimate, nondiscriminatory or nonretaliatory reasons.
7.
The Plaintiff was an at-will employee whose employment could have been
terminated at any time, for any reason, with or without notice.
8.
The Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between her exercise of

statutory rights and any adverse employment action.
9.
The Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie claim necessary to recover under the
statute.
10.
Even if the Plaintiff could establish a prima facie claim, she cannot establish that
the Defendants legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons for their
actions were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.
11.
The Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
12.
The Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the doctrines of waiver, accord and
satisfaction, and laches.
13.
The Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any, were not proximately caused by any act or
omission attributable to these Defendants under any theory of liability.
14.
The Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate any damages she allegedly received.
23
15.
These Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for all claims against them in
their individual capacities.
16.
The Defendants are entitled to immunity from punitive damages in their official
capacities.
17.
These Defendants are otherwise immune from these claims.
18.
These Defendants are immune both from liability and from suit, as their activities
were discretionary, and did not violate any clearly established statutory or
constitutional right of the Plaintiff of which a reasonable person would have
known.
19.
There is no vicarious liability for a federal civil rights claim.
20.
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which punitive damages may be
awarded.
21.
Punitive damages are not recoverable against governmental entities.
22.
The Defendants are entitled to all of the protections and immunities afforded by
Indiana law pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
23.
To the extent that these answering Defendants have not responded to any of the
allegations contained in the Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants specifically deny
the same at this time.
24.
These answering Defendants reserve the right to further plead defenses of which
they become aware through discovery or otherwise.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Concord Community School Corporation and Wayne

Stubbs and Tim Tahara, by counsel, prays that the Plaintiff takes nothing by way of its complaint
for damages, for judgment in favor of these Defendants, and for all other just and proper relief in
the premises, including the costs of this action.
JURY DEMAND
Tahara, by counsel, requests trial by jury on the issues herein.
24
HUNT SUEDHOFF KALAMAROS, LLP

By: /s/ Lyle R. Hardman
Lyle R. Hardman (#16056-49)
Attorney for Concord Community School
Corporation and Wayne Stubbs and Tim Tahara in
their individual capacities
205 W. Jefferson Blvd. Ste. 300
Post Office Box 4156
South Bend, IN 46634-4156
Telephone: (574) 232-4801
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Defendants, Concord Community School Corporation, Wayne Stubbs and Tim Taharas
Answers to Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, Affirmative Defenses, and Jury Demand was
served upon the following:
Michael Merrick
150 N. Michigan Avenue, #800
Chicago, IL 60601
via electronic mail using ECF/Pacer, this 29th day of July, 2015.
/s/ Lyle R. Hardman
Lyle R. Hardman (#16056-49
25

Concord Community Schools Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Concord Community Schools Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANTS, CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION,

Objection. No allegations are set forth against these defendants in

Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph two (2) of

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 2 of 25

The defendants admit that CCSC is a public school corporation. The

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 3 of 25

The defendants admit Mr. Tahara was the assistant superintendent of

The defendants admit that CCSC hired Chiddister as a part-time classroom

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph nine (9) of

Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth or

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eleven (11) of

Objection. Rhetorical paragraph twelve (12) of Plaintiffs Complaint

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 4 of 25

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirteen (13) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fourteen (14) of

Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth or

Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph sixteen (16) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventeen (17) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eighteen (18) of

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 5 of 25

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty (20) of

The defendants admit that Chiddister was asked to give a second

Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth or

Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth or

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-four (24) of

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 6 of 25

Objection. Rhetorical paragraph twenty-five (25) of Plaintiffs Complaint

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-six (26) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-seven (27)

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-nine (29) of

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 7 of 25

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty (30) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-one (31) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-two (32) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-three (33) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-four (34) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-five (35) of

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 8 of 25

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-six (36) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-seven (37) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-eight (38) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-nine (39) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty (40) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-one (41) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-two (42) of

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 9 of 25

The defendants admit that a secretarial position at Ox Bow Elementary

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-four (44) of

Objection. Rhetorical paragraph forty-five (45) of Plaintiffs Complaint is

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-six (46) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-seven (47) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-eight (48) of

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 10 of 25

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-nine (49) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty (50) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-one (51) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-two (52) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-three (53) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-four (54) of

Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-five (55) of

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 11 of 25