Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 1 of 19 PageID 172

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION STACI WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00397 Jury Demanded

v.

THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Defendant.

DEFENDANT THE CITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, The City of Dallas, Texas (Defendant), Defendant in the abovecaptioned matter, and files its Answer to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [Doc. 20] (the Complaint), and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Defendant admits the allegations in the first sentence of Complaint Paragraph 1.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 1. 2. Defendant admits the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 2. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Defendant admits that jurisdiction is properly pled in this Court, but denies any

liability to Plaintiff or that she is entitled to any relief or damages. The remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 3 consist of legal conclusions to which no admission or denial is necessary.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 1 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 2 of 19 PageID 173

4.

Defendant admits that jurisdiction is properly pled in this Court, but denies any

liability to Plaintiff or that she is entitled to any relief or damages. The remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 4 consist of legal conclusions to which no admission or denial is necessary. 5. Defendant admits that Plaintiff provided Defendant with an Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Intake Questionnaire, dated November 10, 2009. Defendant admits that it received a Notice of Charge of Discrimination from the EEOC on or about March 4, 2010 and received a second Notice of Charge of Discrimination on November 29, 2010. Defendant admits that the EEOC dismissed Plaintiffs claim and issued a Notice of Right to Sue on November 30, 2010. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny whether Plaintiff received the EEOCs Notice of Suit Rights on December 11, 2010, and therefore, denies this allegation. Defendant denies that Plaintiff exhausted all of her

administrative remedies, including those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 6. Defendant admits that venue is properly pled in this Court, but denies any liability Defendant denies the remaining

to Plaintiff or that she is entitled to any relief or damages. allegations of Complaint Paragraph 6.
III. NATURE OF THE CLAIM

7.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports to bring federal and state claims based on

alleged harassment, discrimination, and retaliation on the basis of sex, disability, and taking FMLA leave. Defendant denies that it violated any federal or state laws and that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief or damages. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 7 and specifically denies that Defendant engaged in any conduct that would expose Defendant to liability, equitable remedies, or legal damages.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 2 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 3 of 19 PageID 174

IV. WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, AND RETALIATION 8. Defendant admits that it appointed Plaintiff to the position of municipal court

judge in May 2006 and that the Judicial Nominating Committee (JNC) recommended Plaintiffs appointment. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 8. 9. Defendant admits that, as a municipal court judge, Plaintiff was required to sign Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining

search warrants.

allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 9 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 10. Defendant admits that municipal court judges are required to sign arrest warrants.

Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 10 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 11. Defendant admits that Judge Victor Lander was also a municipal court judge Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in

during Plaintiffs first full term. Complaint Paragraph 11. 12. 13.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 12. Defendant admits that Administrative Judge Jay Robinson completed a Judicial

Performance Evaluation of Plaintiff based on Plaintiffs first two years as a full-time municipal judge. Defendant further admits that in 2008 Plaintiff was appointed to a second two-year term. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 13 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 14. 15. Defendant admits that Judge Lander was appointed Administrative Judge in 2008. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 15.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 3 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 4 of 19 PageID 175

16.

Defendant admits that Judge Lander appointed Plaintiff to the Magistrate Court in

September, 2008. Defendant denies that the Magistrate Court was the least desirable court. Defendant denies that Judge Lander made an exception to the Municipal Court Judiciarys tradition and usual protocol in assigning Plaintiff to the Magistrate Court. Defendant denies that it was the Municipal Court Judiciarys tradition and usual protocol to assign the Magistrate Court to the judge with the least seniority. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 16. 17. Defendant admits that Judge Lander, pursuant to a request from the City Council,

increased the docket for each court in the Municipal Court to reduce a backlog of cases in each court. Defendant denies that Judge Lander caused Plaintiff to have 272% more citation each morning than any other court or that Plaintiff was required to handle 252% more citations each afternoon than any other court. Defendant lacks sufficient information regarding the precise number of defendants and citations that the Municipal Court was to handle and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 17. 18. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was subjected to any disparate treatment.

Defendant admits that the Magistrate Court was assigned to handle Mail-In Off Docket motions. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was asked to mentor new associate judges and to perform morning jury orientations. Defendant lacks information concerning the precise number of Mail-In Off Docket motions that Plaintiff was required to review each month and the precise number of associate judges that Plaintiff was asked to mentor and, therefore, denies the allegations. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs Thursday afternoon study afternoons were eliminated while other all other municipal court judges were permitted to take these breaks, but admits that every municipal court judges study afternoon breaks were eliminated pursuant to a
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 4 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 5 of 19 PageID 176

request from the City Council. Complaint Paragraph 18. 19. 20. 21.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in

Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 19. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 20. Defendant denies that Judge Lander ever said to Plaintiff You need to shorten

your dress, it is too long. You need to wear your dresses like Oweda. Defendant denies that Judge Lander ever made any unwelcome comments or advances, or otherwise engaged in any unlawful activity towards Plaintiff. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny that in May, 2009, Plaintiff went to Judge Landers office to inquire about getting credit for two hours of compensatory/FLEX time for working the Homeless Docket on a Saturday Morning, and, therefore, denies this allegation. Paragraph 21. 22. 23. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 22. Defendant denies that Judge Lander failed to provide Plaintiff with any tools she Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint

needed to complete her workload. Defendant admits that Plaintiff requested a second computer for her courtroom, but denies that Defendant ever failed to provide Plaintiff a computer. Defendant denies that Judge Lander ignored Plaintiffs request for a computer for over three months. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 23. 24. Defendant denies the first sentence of Complaint Paragraph 24. Defendant admits

that Judge Lander issued memoranda regarding Plaintiffs failure to follow court procedures, but Defendant denies that these memoranda contained one-sided allegations, were hostile, accusatory, and lacked objectivity. Defendant admits that Judge Lander issued Plaintiff

memoranda concerning her parking in the wrong parking spot and entering the wrong code on
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 5 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 6 of 19 PageID 177

her timesheets. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny that Judge Lander issued Plaintiff a memorandum regarding her using too much paper and, therefore, denies this allegation. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 24. 25. Defendant admits that Plaintiff volunteered to work with Dallas Police

Department officers after the Municipal Courts regular hours to sign warrants and that Plaintiff volunteered to help with the Homeless Docket. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 25 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 26. Defendant admits that it received a request for FMLA leave from Plaintiff but

denies that the request was made in January 2009. Defendant admits that it granted Plaintiffs request. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny that Plaintiff, in January 2009, suffered nausea, chest pains and other medical conditions and, therefore, denies the allegations. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 26. 27. Defendant admits that, on February 3, 2009, Judge Lander wrote a courtesy letter

to Plaintiff advising her of her remaining leave hours. Defendant admits that Judge Lander asked two Municipal Court bailiffs to deliver the letter because he could not reach Plaintiff via telephone or e-mail and he needed to inform Plaintiff that her leave hours were low. Defendant denies that Judge Lander wrote or sent the letter in retaliation for Plaintiffs FMLA leave request. Defendant denies that Judge Lander instructed Plaintiff to return to work the next day and that Judge Lander attempted to harass, intimidate, or humiliate Plaintiff. Defendant admits that Plaintiff remained on leave after receiving the letter, but denies that Plaintiff had requested FMLA leave when Judge Lander sent her the courtesy letter. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 27.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 6 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 7 of 19 PageID 178

28.

Defendant denies that Judge Lander received complaints from other municipal

court judges that the load for the Magistrate Court was too large. Defendant admits that Judge Lander divided the Magistrate Courts duties among other judges during the time that Plaintiff was on leave, including the responsibility to handle Mail-In Off Docket motions. Defendant admits that Judge Lander modified the docket for each court in the Municipal Court, including the Magistrate Court, after a reduction in the backlog of cases in each court. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny that the modification of each courts docket occurred less than six days after Plaintiff went on FMLA leave and, therefore, denies this allegation. Defendant denies that Judge Lander implemented early cut-off times when defendants and attorneys could enter the Magistrate Court. Defendant admits that the Municipal Court

maintained a policy of a mandatory lunch period for the benefit of court staff but denies that this policy was altered during Plaintiffs leave period. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 28. 29. Defendant denies that Plaintiff made any complaints to Defendants Human

Resources Department regarding Judge Lander prior to July, 2009. Defendant further denies the allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 29. 30. Defendant admits that Plaintiff delivered a letter to Defendants Human

Resources Department in July, 2009. Defendant admits that the letter contained allegations of inappropriate comments and advances, as well as retaliation. Defendant denies it subjected Plaintiff to any unlawful discrimination or retaliation and further denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 30. 31. Defendant admits that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants Human Resources

Department in August, 2009. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was subjected to harassment,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 7 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 8 of 19 PageID 179

discrimination, and retaliation, and further denies the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 31. 32. Defendant admits that Judge Lander provided Plaintiff with an Interim

Performance Evaluation in September 2009, but denies that Judge Lander was aware of any allegations made by Plaintiff against him when he prepared the Interim Performance Evaluation. Defendant lacks information sufficient to admit or deny that Judge Landers evaluation was substantially lower than the Judicial Performance Appraisal that former Administrative Judge Jay Robinson completed in March, 2008 and, therefore, denies the allegation. Defendant further denies that Plaintiff was not provided with an in-person interview to discuss the evaluation. Defendant denies that Judge Landers Interim Performance Evaluation included negative comments about Plaintiffs performance related to her taking FMLA leave. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 32. 33. 34. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 33. Defendant admits that Plaintiff provided Defendant with an Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Intake Questionnaire, dated November 10, 2009. Defendant admits that this EEOC Intake Questionnaire contained allegations of discrimination on the basis of sex and retaliation. Defendant admits that the Intake Questionnaire contained allegations of discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and retaliation, but denies that they contained any allegations of discrimination on the basis of a disability. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 34. 35. Defendant admits that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants Human Resources Defendant admits that the letter contained allegations of

Department in December, 2009.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 8 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 9 of 19 PageID 180

harassment and retaliation and complaints of a delay in investigating the allegations. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 35. 36. Defendant admits that it began the process of appointing municipal court judges

in January, 2010. Defendant admits that Plaintiff and other municipal court judges submitted applications to be considered for appointment. Defendant admits that Dallas City Attorney Tom Perkins was asked by a JNC member about complaints regarding any and all municipal court judges. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 36 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 37. Defendant admits that municipal judge candidates were interviewed by JNC

members. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was not afforded an opportunity to address any of the complaints made against her. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 37 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 38. Defendant admits that the JNC ranked all of the municipal judge candidates, but

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the basis for each members rankings. Defendant admits that Plaintiff received a score of 9 total points from the JNC. Defendant admits that Plaintiff received votes from one JNC member. Defendant admits that the JNC ranked Plaintiff 17 out of 18 municipal judge candidates. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was not one of the 11 candidates recommended by the JNC for appointment to the Municipal Court. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 38 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 39. Defendant admits that City Councilmember Vonciel Jones-Hill sent an e-mail

to City Councilmember Angela Hunt and City Attorney Tom Perkins requesting complaints by

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 9 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 10 of 19 PageID 181

or against any of the current municipal court judges. Defendant denies the City Councilmember Vonciel Jones-Hill is a close friend of Judge Lander. 40. Defendant admits that City Councilmember Vonciel Jones-Hill sent an e-mail to

City Councilmember Angela Hunt and City Attorney Tom Perkins requesting that the Ad-Hoc Legislative Committee be apprised of any complaints by or against any and all of the current municipal judges. Defendant also admits that City Councilmember Vonciel Jones-Hill requested City Attorney Tom Perkins to provide the Committee with a summary before the Committees meeting. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 40 and, therefore, denies the allegations. 41. Defendant admits that City Attorney Tom Perkins provided a summary of all

complaints regarding municipal court judges in response to Councilmember Vonciel Jones-Hills request. Defendant denies that the memorandum contained no complaints made against

municipal judges other than Plaintiff. Defendant admits that City Attorney Perkinss summary contained complaints about Plaintiff and that the document also contained a summary of Plaintiffs complaints against Judge Lander made to Defendants Human Resources Department and the EEOC. Defendant denies that Plaintiff had never been given an opportunity to respond to any of the complaints listed in City Attorney Perkinss summary. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 41. 42. Defendant admits that the Ad-Hoc Legislative Committee of the City Council

recommended 11 candidates for appointment to the Municipal Court in June, 2010 and that the JNC recommended the appointment of the same 11 candidates. Defendant further admits that the City Council appointed these 11 candidates recommended by the Ad-Hoc Legislative Committee to the Municipal Court on June 23, 2010. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 10 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 11 of 19 PageID 182

only municipal court judge who was not reappointed. allegations of Complaint Paragraph 42. 43.

Defendant denies the remaining

Defendant denies the last sentence of Complaint Paragraph 43 and further denies

that that it failed to reinstate Plaintiff. Defendant admits the remaining allegation contained in Complaint Paragraph 43, but denies that Mayor Pro-Tem Dwaine Carraways statements are attributable to Defendant. 44. Defendant admits that Judge Lander issued Plaintiff a memoranda in June, 2010.

Defendant admits that the memorandum notified Plaintiff that her two-year appointment to the Municipal Court would end on June 25, 2010. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 44 and, therefore, denies the allegations. V. CAUSES OF ACTION A. Violation of the TCHRA by Harassment 45. 46. 47. 48. Defendant incorporates Paragraphs 1-44 by reference. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 46. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 47. Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 48 and avers that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. B. Violation of the TCHRA by Discrimination 49. 50. 51. Defendant incorporates Paragraphs 1-48 by reference. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 50. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 51.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 11 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 12 of 19 PageID 183

52.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 52 and avers that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. C. Violation of the TCHRA by Retaliation 53. 54. 55. 56. Defendant incorporates Paragraphs 1-52 by reference. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 54. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 55. Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 56 and avers that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. D. Violation of Title VII (42 U.S.CX. 2000e-2(a)(1) by Discrimination 57. 58. 59. 60. Defendant incorporates Paragraphs 1-56 by reference. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 58. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 59. Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 60 and avers that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. E. Violation of Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1)) by Harassment 61. 62. 63. Defendant incorporates Paragraphs 1-60 by reference. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 62. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 63.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 12 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 13 of 19 PageID 184

64.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 64 and avers that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. F. Violation of Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) by Retaliation 65. 66. 67. 68. Defendant incorporates Paragraphs 1-64 by reference. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 66. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 67. Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 68 and avers that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. G. Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12165 and

12202-12203) 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. H. Defendant incorporates Paragraphs 1-68 by reference. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 70. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 71. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 72. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 73. Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.

Violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) 75. 76. 77. Defendant incorporates Paragraphs 1-74 by reference. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 76. Defendant admits that Plaintiff applied for and was granted FMLA leave on

February 10, 2009. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 77.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 13 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 14 of 19 PageID 185

78. 79.

Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 78. Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 79. I. Section 1983 Under Monell 80. 81. 82. Defendant incorporates Paragraph 1-79 by reference. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 81. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 82, including

subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of Complaint Paragraph 82. 83. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny that any statements about

Plaintiff were later published in the Dallas Morning News, D Magazine, the Dallas Observer online, and several internet sites, and, therefore, denies this allegation. Defendant admits that Plaintiff filed an open records request in October, 2010. Defendant denies the remaining

allegations of Complaint Paragraph 83, and specifically denies that it discharged Plaintiff. 84. Defendant admits that Plaintiff submitted a complaint to David Etheridge at

Defendants Human Resources Department. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 84. 85. 86. 87. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 85. Defendant denies the allegations of Complaint Paragraph 86. Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Complaint Paragraph 87. VI. EXPERT AND ATTORNEYS FEES 88. Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks recovery of her expert and attorneys fees

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the TCHRA, Title VII, the ADA, the FMLA, and 42
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 14 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 15 of 19 PageID 186

U.S.C. 1983, but denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the fees requested in Complaint Paragraph 88. VII. JURY DEMAND 89. in this action. VIII. PRAYER Defendant admits that Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues of fact and damages

Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to relief demanded in the Prayer, including the judgment, relief, damages, costs, or fees requested in subsections b. through h. Defendant denies all allegations of the Complaint not specifically admitted herein.

IX. DEFENSES 1. To the extent Plaintiffs claims fall outside the applicable statutes of limitations,

these claims are barred. 2. All claims pursuant to Title VII and the TCHRA are barred for which Plaintiff

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, failed to timely raise in the administrative process, and/or failed to timely file a Charge of Discrimination. 3. All claims pursuant to the ADA are barred for which Plaintiff failed to exhaust

her administrative remedies, failed to timely raise in the administrative process, and/or failed to timely file a Charge of Discrimination 4. Plaintiffs damages are limited to the extent she failed to use reasonable efforts to

mitigate her alleged damages, if any.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 15 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 16 of 19 PageID 187

5.

Defendant is immune from punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1981a (b)(1). 6. Even if Defendant were not immune from punitive damages, Plaintiff could not

recover punitive damages under the TCHRA, Title VII, the ADA, or the FMLA because any alleged unlawful employment decisions were contrary to Defendants good faith efforts to comply with employment discrimination statutes and because Defendant did not act with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff. 7. Defendant made reasonable efforts in good faith to implement and enforce its

anti-harassment, anti-discrimination, and anti-retaliation workplace rules and procedures, and Plaintiff, if she had been subjected to unlawful conduct, failed to take advantage of those workplace rules and procedures. 8. Defendant made all employment decisions relative to Plaintiff for legitimate, non-

discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reasons. 9. Defendant would have made all of the same employment decisions relative to

Plaintiff irrespective of any consideration allegedly given to her protected categories or protected activity. 10. All employment decisions made by Defendant were based on legitimate, non-

discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reasons, and even if Plaintiff were able to prove that Defendants actions were based upon an impermissible motivating factor, which she cannot do, Defendant would have taken the same actions in the absence of any impermissible motivating factor. 11. Defendant exercised reasonable care in order to prevent and correct promptly, if

necessary, any alleged harassing, discriminatory or retaliatory conduct, and Plaintiff failed to
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 16 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 17 of 19 PageID 188

report any alleged unlawful behavior or otherwise take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities or to avoid harm otherwise. 12.
Defendant affirmatively pleads that it does not have a custom, policy or practice, the

application of which deprived Plaintiff or any other party of any federally secured rights and that it was not deliberately or consciously indifferent to Plaintiffs or any other parties federally secured rights.

13.

Even if Plaintiff was to prove herein that any act or action on the part of

Defendant, complained of by Plaintiff in this suit, was the result of an impermissible motivating factor, as provided in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)(2)(B), then Defendant asserts that each and all of the acts and actions on the part of Defendant would have been the same even in the absence of any such impermissible motivating factor; and Plaintiffs damages and other relief must be restricted by the Court in the manner prescribed by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). 14. Defendant avers that this action is frivolous, unreasonable and groundless and

accordingly, Defendant is entitled to attorneys fees and costs associated with the defense of this action. 15. In the unlikely event of a liability finding against Defendant, Defendant pleads

alternatively that it is entitled to the applicable limits, exclusions and/or offsets on damages set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1983 as well as the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code 101.023, as applicable, and hereby notifies Plaintiff of its intention to assert the damage limits, exclusions and offsets. 16. Plaintiffs claims for damages and equitable relief are limited by the relevant

provisions of the TCHRA, Title VII, the ADA, the FMLA, and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 17 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 18 of 19 PageID 189

17.

Plaintiffs claims for alleged violations of the TCHRA, Title VII, the ADA, the

FMLA, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 are not part of, or subject to, the continuing violating doctrine. 18. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and purports to

assert claims that are impermissible under the TCHRA, Title VII, the ADA, the FMLA, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. 19. Plaintiffs claims as alleged in the Complaint are barred insofar as they assert

matters outside the scope of any EEOC or TWC charges. 20. Plaintiffs damages and/or losses, if any, are barred in whole or in part by the

after-acquired evidence doctrine. 21. Defendant reserves the right to assert any other claims or defenses as may be

available, or may become available, to it during the course of these proceedings. X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant, City of Dallas, prays that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of her claims against Defendant, that the Court award Defendant its attorneys fees and costs, and grant it all other relief to which it is entitled.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 18 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00397-P Document 24

Filed 09/13/11

Page 19 of 19 PageID 190

Respectfully submitted,

/s /Michael A. McCabe E. Leon Carter Texas Bar No. 03914300 lcarter@munckcarter.com Michael A. McCabe Texas Bar No. 24007628 mmccabe@munckcarter.com Jeffrey B. Chugg, Jr. Texas Bar No. 24076315 jchugg@munckcarter.com MUNCK CARTER, LLP 600 Banner Place Tower 12770 Coit Road Dallas, Texas 75251 972-628-3600 (phone) 972-628-3616 (facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record via ECF on September 13, 2011.

/s /Michael A. McCabe Michael A. McCabe

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ P AGE 19 T HE C ITY OF DALLASS ANSWER TO P LAINTIFF S AMENDED C OMPLAINT