U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bank of America, N.A

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/31/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

11 C 6378

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Bank of America, N.A. (“BofA”) has filed its Answer to the
First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) brought against it by EEOC,
which charges BofA with having violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in connection with the employment of
Jamal Williams.

This memorandum opinion and order is issued sua

sponte because of some problematic aspects of the affirmative
defenses (“ADs”) included in the Answer.
Needless to say, this Court expresses no views as to the
merits of the matter.

Instead it proceeds on the arguendo

premise, just as BofA must do for AD purposes (see Fed. R. Civ.
P. (“Rule”) 8(c) and the universal caselaw applying it, as well
as App’x ¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199
F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001)), that the Complaint’s
allegations are correct.

That being so, it is frankly difficult

to be patient with lawyers (and there are unfortunately too many
of them) who include the equivalent of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as
a purported AD when, as here, a complaint plainly states a claim.

AD 1 is therefore stricken.
AD 2 fares no better, for it is in direct conflict with
Complaint ¶¶9, 12 and 13.

It too is stricken.

Finally, that same problem confronts ADs 5 and 6.

They are

stricken as well.1

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

October 31, 2011

1

It should perhaps be emphasized that BofA loses nothing
by the rejection of ADs for the reasons stated in the text. BofA
has already placed the same matters in issue by its denial of the
corresponding allegations of the Complaint.
2