Soilworks LLC v Midwest Industrial Supply Inc

Filing 185

Soilworks LLC v Midwest Industrial Supply Inc

Doc. 185

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

Christopher M. Mason, SBN 019891 Michelle H. Ganz, SBN 023651 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., SBN 00504800 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Special Health Care District, Maricopa Integrated Health System and its Board of Directors IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Amelia Shelhorse, Plaintiff, vs. Maricopa County Special Health Care District; Maricopa Integrated Health System and its Board of Directors, and Arizona political subdivision; Connie Jackson, Defendants. ANSWER ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT AND MARICOPA INTEGRATED HEALTH SYSTEM AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Honorable Roslyn O. Silver) No. CV08-428-PHX-ROS

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

F o r their Answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this matter, Defendants Maricopa County Special Health Care District, and Maricopa Integrated Health System ("MIHS") and its Board of Directors (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants") respond as follows:

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Answering Paragraph 1, Defendants admit that Plaintiff Amelia Shelhorse

is an adult female. Defendants are presently without sufficient information to admit or deny the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, deny the same. 2. 3. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 2. Answering Paragraph 3, Defendants admit that Plaintiff was employed by

MIHS as a Registered Nurse in its Post-Partum Department from April 23, 2007, until Plaintiff was terminated during her probationary period of employment on September 14, 2007. Defendants admit that if Plaintiff had been employed by MIHS for one (1)

calendar year, she would have been eligible to receive a $20,000.00 bonus. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3. 4. Answering Paragraph 4, Defendants admit that MIHS employed Connie

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Jackson as a Registered Nurse in its Post-Partum Department. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4. 5. Paragraph 5 purports to assert a legal conclusion, which requires no answer

by Defendants. To the extent that Paragraph 5 asserts factual allegations, and subject to the preceding and succeeding allegation-specific admissions, denials and affirmative allegations, Defendants generally deny that the alleged actions in the Complaint occurred or that they occurred as alleged. Defendants admit that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5. 6. Paragraph 6 purports to assert a legal conclusion, which requires no answer

by Defendants. To the extent that Paragraph 6 asserts factual allegations, Defendants admit that Plaintiff was an employee of MIHS. allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Paragraph 7 purports to assert a legal conclusion, which requires no answer Defendants deny the remaining

by Defendants. To the extent that Paragraph 7 asserts factual allegations, Defendants admit that they are employers pursuant to the definition provided in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 8. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 9. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 10. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 11. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 12. Defendants are presently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations in Paragraph 13 and, therefore, deny the same. 14. Answering Paragraph 14, Defendants admit that Kim Wilson spoke to

Plaintiff, likely by telephone, and requested a meeting with her in Maria Hayes' office on September 14, 2008. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14. 15. Answering Paragraph 15, Defendants admit that Maria Hayes worked at

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Phoenix Baptist Hospital prior to working at MIHS. Defendants admit that Connie Jackson also worked at Phoenix Baptist Hospital prior to working at MIHS. Defendants admit that Ms. Jackson was hired by Ms. Hayes to work for MIHS. Defendants are presently without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 and, therefore, deny the same. 16. Answering Paragraph 16, Defendants admit that Plaintiff had a meeting

with Maria Hayes and Kim Wilson in Ms. Hayes' office on the morning of September 14, 2007. Defendants admit that during this meeting Plaintiff was provided with written notice of her termination from her probationary period of employment because of unsatisfactory performance. Defendants admit that Ms. Hayes and Ms. Wilson discussed with Plaintiff the reasons for her termination, which included several complaints about Plaintiff by her co-workers. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16. 17. Defendants are presently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations in Paragraph 17 and, therefore, deny the same. 18. 19. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 18. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 19.

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

20.

Defendants are presently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations in Paragraph 20 and, therefore, deny the same. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff purports to make a proper jury demand, which requires no answer by Defendants. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's demand for jury trial. GENERAL DENIAL Defendants deny each and every allegation in the Complaint not expressly admitted herein. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by her failure to state a

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Plaintiff's claims are barred due to her failure to provide proper notice to

one or more Defendants, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821(A). 3. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants'

actions were based upon legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons. 4. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by her failure to

reasonably mitigate her alleged damages. 5. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that she

mitigated her alleged damages. 6. Plaintiff's alleged damages are barred to the extent they exceed the

statutory damages for her claims. 7. Any award of punitive damages against Defendants would be barred, in

whole or in part, by the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States and Arizona Constitutions. 8. Defendants reserve the right to amend their affirmative defenses as

discovery proceeds.

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants respectfully demand judgment in their favor as follows: A. That Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff take

nothing thereby; B. C. That Defendants be awarded their costs incurred herein; That Defendants be awarded their reasonable attorneys' fees incurred

herein pursuant to any statute or court rule allowing such recovery; D. That Defendants be awarded pre and post-judgment interest on the

foregoing amounts at the maximum rate permitted by law; and E. That Defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

deems just and proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4th day of August 2008. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

By: s/ Michelle H. Ganz Christopher M. Mason Michelle H. Ganz 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Special Health Care District, Maricopa Integrated Health System and its Board of Directors

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 4th day of August 2008, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF Systems for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Cheri Lane McCracken, Esq. 2402 N. 24th Street, Suite 1 Phoenix, Arizona 85008-1803 s/ Debra A. Perkins Debra Ann Perkins
6541982.1 (OGLETREE)

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6