11 Answer To Intervenor Complaint
11 Answer To Intervenor Complaint
:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :
COMMISSION, :
: Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-1099-LPR
:
Plaintiff, : THE KROGER COMPANY dba
v. : KROGER STORE NO. 625 ANSWER
THE KROGER COMPANY dba KROGER : TO INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS’
STORE NO. 625 : COMPLAINT
:
Defendant. :
:
BRENDA LAWSON and :
TRUDI RICKERD
Intervenors
Defendant, The Kroger Company dba Kroger Store No. 625 (“Kroger”) by and through
its counsel, for its Answer to the Complaint of Intervenor Plaintiffs Brenda Lawson and Trudy
(“Complaint”) are legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response
is deemed necessary, Kroger admits that this Court has jurisdiction over this action. Kroger states
that Plaintiffs do not have a legitimate cause of action against it and are not entitled to any relief.
Kroger admits that the venue is proper. Kroger denies the remaining allegations contained in
PARTIES
which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Kroger admits that
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is a federal agency tasked with the
administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”). Kroger states that Plaintiffs do not have a legitimate cause of action against it and are not
entitled to relief. Kroger denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ complaint.
which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Kroger admits the
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
7. Kroger admits the allegations that more than thirty days prior to the institution of
this lawsuit, Brenda Lawson (“Lawson”) and Trudy Rickerd (“Rickerd”) filed charges with the
EEOC wrongfully alleging violations of Title VII. Kroger denies the remaining allegations
8. Kroger admits that the EEOC wrongfully issued a reasonable cause determination
finding that Kroger violated Title VII on April 29, 2020. Kroger denies the remaining allegations
2
Case 4:20-cv-01099-LPR Document 11 Filed 12/15/20 Page 3 of 6
15. Kroger denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted.
16. Kroger denies the allegations contained in the PRAYER FOR RELIEF section of
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, including subsections A-F, and denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.
17. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each of their purported causes of action fail to state facts
18. One or more of Plaintiffs’ claims and/or allegations are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
19. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each of their purported causes of action are barred either in
20. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each of their purported causes of action are barred either in
whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver, consent, estoppel, unclean hands, and other equitable bases.
21. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages are speculative and thus unavailable as a matter of law.
22. Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state sufficient facts upon which an award of punitive
damages can be based and therefore such an award would violate the United States and Arkansas law and
public policy.
23. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by their own bad faith conduct.
25. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is barred, in whole or part, because the relief sought exceeds that
authorized by law.
3
Case 4:20-cv-01099-LPR Document 11 Filed 12/15/20 Page 4 of 6
26. Plaintiffs lack a good faith basis for their claims, in whole or in part, entitling Kroger to
27. Plaintiffs have suffered no damages as a result of the alleged conduct of Kroger. Any
alleged damages suffered by Plaintiffs are the result of their own conduct or omissions.
29. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because each action taken by Kroger
with regard to Plaintiffs was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons.
30. To the extent Plaintiffs suffered harassment or improper treatment, if any, Kroger
exercised reasonable care to prevent and timely correct any such behavior, and Plaintiffs unreasonably
failed to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities provided by Kroger, or failed to avoid
harm otherwise.
31. To the extent there were complaints about alleged failure to accommodate a religious
belief, alleged discrimination, alleged harassment, or improper treatment, all actions taken by Kroger
were timely and appropriate and constituted prompt, effective remedial measures under the
circumstances, and these actions by Kroger bar or preclude the Plaintiffs’ claims.
32. To the extent there were complaints about alleged failure to accommodate a religious
belief, alleged discrimination, alleged harassment, or improper treatment, all actions taken by Kroger
were timely and appropriate and constituted prompt, effective remedial measures under the
circumstances, and these actions by Kroger bar or preclude the Plaintiffs’ claims.
33. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedures.
35. Kroger presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as
to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Kroger reserves herein the right to
assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that they would be appropriate.
4
Case 4:20-cv-01099-LPR Document 11 Filed 12/15/20 Page 5 of 6
2. That the Court enter a judgment in favor of Kroger, and direct the Plaintiffs
recover nothing;
3. That Kroger be awarded its costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, if
appropriate; and
4. Any and other relief to which Kroger may now or hereafter be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Faith C. Whittaker
Hayley L. Geiler
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
T: (513) 977-8200
F: (513) 977-8141
[email protected]
[email protected]
253716
5
Case 4:20-cv-01099-LPR Document 11 Filed 12/15/20 Page 6 of 6