EEOC v. Blockbuster Inc.
Filing
7
ANSWER to Complaint by Blockbuster Inc..(Speights, Grace)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )
COMMISSION,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BLOCKBUSTER INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Civil Action No.: 8:07-CV-02612
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF
DEFENDANT BLOCKBUSTER INC.
Defendant Blockbuster Inc. (“Blockbuster” or “Defendant”), by and through its attorneys,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, for its answer and affirmative defenses to the Complaint of
Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) states the
following:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports to bring this action under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, but Defendant
denies that facts exist that would entitle Plaintiff to maintain the claims advanced or to obtain the
relief sought.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. Defendant admits that Plaintiff
purports to further invoke this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”),
1-WA/2870330.3
and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, but Defendant denies that
facts exist that would entitle Plaintiff to maintain the claims advanced or to obtain the relief
sought.
2.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports the practices alleged to be unlawful were
committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
Southern Division, but Defendant denies that facts exist that would entitle Plaintiff to maintain
the claims advanced or to obtain the relief sought.
PARTIES
3.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff is an agency of the United States of America
charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and purports to
bring this action under the express authorization of § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), but Defendant denies that facts exist that would entitle Plaintiff to
maintain the claims advanced or to obtain the relief sought.
4.
Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5.
Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6.
Defendant admits that Lolita Gonzales and Dolores Gonzales (“Charging
Parties”) filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by
Defendant. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
7.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
8.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
9.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
10.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
11.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
1-WA/2870330.3
2
12.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
13.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
17.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
18.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
20.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
24.
Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
Defendant further denies every allegation, whether express or implied, that is not
unequivocally or specifically admitted in the Answer.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Defendant denies that the EEOC, Charging Parties, or any of the purported putative class
members are entitled to the relief requested in paragraphs A. through H. of the Prayer for Relief,
or to any relief whatsoever.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
FIRST DEFENSE
To the extent that Plaintiff failed to comply with statutory and/or jurisdictional
prerequisites for the institution of an action under the statutes it relies upon in its Complaint, its
claims are barred and/or diminished.
1-WA/2870330.3
3
SECOND DEFENSE
Plaintiff has failed to meet its statutory duty to conciliate in good faith prior to instituting
this action.
THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII are barred to the extent that the Complaint alleges
conduct that was not previously alleged in a timely administrative charge filed with the EEOC,
or that otherwise exceeds the scope of the charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC.
FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII are barred to the extent that the Complaint is based on
conduct occurring more than 300 days prior to the proper filing of a charge of discrimination
with the EEOC raising such claim or claims.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Defendant denies that sex, race/national origin, or any other impermissible factor played
any role in the employment decisions to Charging Party Lolita Gonzales or Charging Party
Dolores Gonzales or any purported putative class members. Alternatively, even if some
impermissible motive had been a factor in any of those decisions, the same decisions would have
been reached for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.
SIXTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation should be dismissed because the challenged employment
decisions are justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory and non-pretextual
business reasons and were based upon reasonable factors other than the Charging Parties’
protected status and/or their alleged protected activity, and because Plaintiff cannot show that the
Charging Parties were meeting Defendant’s legitimate expectations or show a causal connection
between any protected activity and any adverse employment action.
1-WA/2870330.3
4
SEVENTH DEFENSE
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant has had in place a clear and well
disseminated policy against harassment, discrimination, or other inappropriate conduct, on the
basis of race, national origin, gender, or other protected classifications, and a reasonable and
available procedure for handling complaints, which provides for prompt and effective responsive
action.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
If any improper, illegal, or discriminatory acts were taken by an employee of Defendant
against Charging Party Lolita Gonzales, Charging Party Dolores Gonzales, or any of the
purported putative class members, it was outside the course and scope of that employee’s
employment, or an independent, intervening and or unforeseeable act, contrary to Defendant’s
policies, and was not ratified, confirmed, or approved by Defendant. Thus any such actions
cannot be attributed or imputed to Defendant.
NINTH DEFENSE
Claims of any putative class members are untimely because they did not file timely
administrative charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the putative
class members cannot piggyback on the charges of Plaintiffs.
TENTH DEFENSE
Defendant is entitled to contribution and/or indemnification from Venturi Staffing
Partners, Inc. as the agency responsible for receiving and investigating complaints of the
Charging Parties and some or all of the putative class members.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
Defendant has made a good faith effort to comply with anti-discrimination laws and
Defendant has not engaged in any alleged conduct with malice or reckless indifference to the
1-WA/2870330.3
5
protected rights of any aggrieved individual, and thus neither Plaintiff, Charging Party Lolita
Gonzales, Charging Party Dolores Gonzales, nor any of the purported putative class members are
entitled to punitive damages.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
Damages sought by the EEOC for Charging Parties or any putative class members are
barred or diminished to the extent they failed to mitigate their damages.
Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses or affirmative defenses as
established by the facts of the case.
WHEREFORE, having fully responded to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant respectfully
requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice, award Defendant its costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this lawsuit, and allow Defendant such other and further
relief as this Court deems proper.
Dated: December 21, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
/s/______________________
Grace E. Speights (Bar No. 05254)
202-739-5189
Lexer I. Quamie (admission pending)
202-739-5955
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
202-739-3001 (fax)
Counsel for Blockbuster Inc.
1-WA/2870330.3
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served, via ECF a copy of the foregoing Answer and
Affirmative Defenses of Defendant Blockbuster Inc. to the Complaint of Plaintiff the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, on the 21st day of December 2007 on the following
counsel:
Debra Michele Lawrence
Ronald L. Phillips
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
City Crescent Building
10 South Howard Street
Third Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Jacqueline H. McNair
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
801 Market Street
Penthouse Suite 1300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
/s/ Grace E. Speights________
1-WA/2870330.3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?