Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nevada Health Centers, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER Granting 17 Stipulation. Defendant Nevada Health Care Center shall forthwith separately file it's Amended Answer which it attached as Exhibit 1 to the stipulation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 10/24/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 6

1

proposed first Amended Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The deadline to add parties and

2

amend pleadings has not yet been set. Therefore, this request is timely.

3

II.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Defendant seeks to amend its Answer to

4
5

add/amend the following affirmative defenses:

6

6.

7

actions taken concerning the Charging Party were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory business

8

reasons consistent with federal laws, state laws and public policies. By asserting this affirmative

9

defense, Defendant is not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s employer or joint employer and

10

Defendant specifically asserts that no such employment relationship with the Charging Party existed.

11

7.

12

any and all acts taken by NVHC were just, fair, privileged, with good cause, in good faith, and

13

without malice. By asserting this affirmative defense, Defendant is not admitting that it was the

14

Charging Party’s employer or joint employer and Defendant specifically asserts that no such

15

employment relationship with the Charging Party existed.

16

8.

17

if Plaintiff is adjudged to be entitled to any recovery, then NVHC is entitled to a set-off for any

18

compensation, including without limitation to, unemployment compensation, wages, salaries and/or

19

social security payments, received by Charging Party.

20

Defendant is not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s employer or joint employer and

21

Defendant specifically asserts that no such employment relationship with the Charging Party existed.

22

9.

23

is not entitled to punitive damages because the alleged misconduct would be contrary to NVHC’s

24

good faith efforts to comply with the Title VII and any amendments thereto. Further, any claim for

25

punitive damages is invalid on its face or as applied to NVHC pursuant to Article IV, Section 2 and

26

the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. By asserting this

27

affirmative defense, Defendant is not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s employer or joint

28

employer and Defendant specifically asserts that no such employment relationship with the Charging
2.

CITTLEMENDLON
3960 6o,.9 Hg6e,
SV. 300

t,, V,9 NV 89169 6931
702 562 9800

For and as a sixth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges that any

For and as a seventh, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges that

For and as an eighth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges that

By asserting this affirmative defense,

For and as a ninth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges Plaintiff

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 6

1

Party existed.

2

11.

3

damages under Title VII are limited to any applicable statutory cap including, but not limited to, the

4

statutory cap set forth in 42 U.S.C.

5

not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s employer or joint employer and Defendant specifically

6

asserts that no such employment relationship with the Charging Party existed.

7

12.

$

NVHC’s conduct towards Charging Party was fully justified based upon bona fide occupational

9

qualifications. By asserting this affirmative defense, Defendant is not admitting that it was the

10

Charging Party’s employer or joint employer and Defendant specifically asserts that no such

11

employment relationship with the Charging Party existed.

12

13.

13

claims are barred as to Defendant, in whole or in part, because Defendant was not an employer or

14

joint employer of the Charging Party.

15

14.

16

legally responsible for any damages claimed by Plaintiff. If, however, Defendant is found to be

17

legally responsible, Defendant’s legal responsibilities are not the sole and proximate cause of any

18

injury, and damages awarded to Plaintiff, if any, should be apportioned according to the respective

19

fault and legal responsibility of all parties, persons and entities, and/or the agents, servants, and

20

employees who contributed to and/or caused said incidents to proof presented at the time of trial. By

21

asserting this affirmative defense, Defendant is not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s

22

employer or joint employer and Defendant specifically asserts that no such employment relationship

23

with the Charging Party existed.

24

15.

25

conclusory and vague terms, NVHC cannot fully anticipate all affirmative defenses that may be

26

applicable to this case. Accordingly, NVHC hereby reserves the right to assert additional affirmative

27

defenses.

2$

///

LITTLEMENDLON, P
3960 Ho.,rd HuN,, Pvkwy
SV, 300
L. Ve3,

NV 89169-9937

103 863 8800

F or and as an eleventh, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, any alleged

§ 19$ 1(a). By asserting this affirmative defense, Defendant is

For and as a twelfth, separate and affirmative defense, NVHC alleges that alleges that

For and as a thirteenth, separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs

For and as a fourteenth, separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that it is not

For a fifteenth, separate and affirmative defense, because the Complaint is couched in

3.

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 6

III.

CONCLUSION
The Parties hereby stipulate and agree that Defendant shall be permitted to file the first

j

Amended Answer attached hereto as Exhibiti. The First Amended Answer shall be deemed flied as

4

olthe date of the Court’s Order on this Stiptilation.
IT IS SO STIPULATED:

6
7

/
/

/

Dated: October l20l6

2016

8
C)

NEC1OLE M. ZJARCIA. ESQ.
ERIC?AU, ESQ.
ANNA Y. PARK, ESQ.
SUE J. NOR, ESQ,
IWMDO[. VUONG, ESQ.

).

10
11
12

for 1)efendant
)A HEALTH CENTERS. INC.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

13
14
15

IS SO ORDERED:
ITIT IS ORDERED that the parties' Stipulation (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. Defendant

16

Nevada Health Care Center shall forthwith separately file it's Amended Answer which it
attached as Exhibit 1 toJUDGE
the stipulation.
U.S DISTRICT COURT

17
18

Dated this 24th day of October, 2016.
______________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
‘7

23
24

25
26
27
28
Ti R MNC)I SON,
St, iCJ

IN
I?? 1? ‘SC

9,?

4.

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17 Filed 10/17/16 Page 5 of 6

PROOF OF SERVICE

1
2

I am a resident of the State of Nevada, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the

3

within action. My business address is 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300, Las Vegas, NV

4

89169. On October

5

7by serving the following parties electronically through CM/ECF.

8
9

2016, I served the within document:

STIPULATION TO AMEND DEFENDANT NEVADA
HEALTH CENTER, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

6
7

4,

by placing a true copy of the document listed above for collection and mailing following
the firm’s ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid for deposit in the United States mail at Las Vegas, Nevada addressed as set forth
below.

Q

10

Anna Y. Park, Esq.
Sue J. Noh, Esq.
Rumduol Vuong, Esq.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
255 E. Temple St., 4th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012

12
13
14

Nechole M. Garcia, Esq.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
333 Las Vegas Blvd., South
Suite $112
Las Vegas, NV 89101

Eric Yau, Esq.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 7-127
Honolulu, HI 96850

11

Donald J. Green, Esq.
4760 S. Pecos Rd., Suite 103
Las Vegas, NV $9121
Attorney for UltraCare Las Vegas

15
16
17
18
19

I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for

20

mailing and for shipping via overnight delivery service. Under that practice it would be deposited

21

with the U.S. Postal Service or if an overnight delivery service shipment, deposited in an overnight

22

delivery service pick-up box or office on the same day with postage or fees thereon fully prepaid in

23

the ordinary course of business.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October

24
25

/I

,

2016, at Las Vegas, Nevada.

26
27
Firniwide;143290930. I 069844.1003

2$
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C
A,,O..tv$ AT L.w
AgTe

39AOTT.A

3C0
U 8AT559A7
7 A6 6B

5.

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17 Filed 10/17/16 Page 6 of 6

EXHIBIT 1NDEX
No.:

Name:

1

Defendant Nevada Health Center, Inc’s Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17-1 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 9

EXHIBIT “1”

Defendant Nevada Health Center, Inc.’s Amended
Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint and Demand for
Jury Trial

EXHIBIT “1”

Defendant Nevada Health Center, Inc.’s Amended
Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint and Demand for
Jury Trial

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17-1 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 9

1
2

3
4
5
6

BRUCE C. YOUI’G, ESQ., Bar #5560
KATHRYN B. BLAKEY, ESQ., Bar #12701
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 29169-5937
702.862.8200
Telephone:
702.862.8811
fax No.:
Email: [e-mail]
Email: kblakeyJlitt1er.com

Attorneys for Defendant
NEVADA HEALTH CENTERS, NC.

7
$

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

Case No. 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

12

DEFENDANT NEVADA HEALTH
CENTER, INC.’S AMENDED ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
15

NEVADA HEALTH CENTERS, NC.,
ULTRACARE LAS VEGAS and DOES 15, inclusive,

16
Defendants.
17
1$

Defendant NEVADA HEALTH CENTERS, NC. (hereinafter “NVHC”), by and through its

19

attorneys of record, Littler Mendelson, hereby files this Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint,

20

and states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION

21

22

NVHC acknowledges Plaintiff EEOC is alleging in the paragraph entitled “NATURE Of

23

THE ACTION” that this action is being brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

24

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging in the paragraph

25

entitled “NATURE OF THE ACTION” that NVHC violated these statutes or is liable for unlawful

26

discrimination pursuant to these statutes, NVHC denies such allegations.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P
AITORWEYS Ar LAW

3960 HowarA Hughes Parkway
Su,re 300
3,, Hwg,s

ruV

69169 5937

702 669 ASOC

1.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint that Plaintiff is

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17-1 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 9

invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.

I
2

2.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3

3.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
PARTIES

4

5

4.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

6

5.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

7

6.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

8

7.

NVHC is without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the veracity of the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and on that basis denies the same.

9

8.

10

NVHC is without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the veracity of the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and on that basis denies the same.

11

9.

12

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint that at all relevant

13

times, Defendant UltraCare employed David Matlock and that Defendant UltraCare controlled the

14

terms and conditions of David Matlock’s employment. NVHC is without sufficient information or

15

belief to admit or deny the veracity of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the

16

Complaint and on that basis denies the same.
10.

17

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint that it was a joint

employer of David Matlock.

18
19

a.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 Oa of the Complaint.

20

b.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph lOb of the Complaint.

21

c.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph lOc of the Complaint.

22

d.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph lOd of the Complaint.

23

e.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph lOe of the Complaint.

11.

24

NVHC acknowledges Plaintiff is alleging in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint that

25

“Nevada Health and UltraCare are persons against whom a right to relief is asserted jointly,

26

severally, or out of the same transactions or series of transactions,” that “questions of law or fact

27

common to all Defendants will arise in this action,” and that “U]oint employers are named as parties

28

pursuant to Rule 20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” These conclusions are not facts
2.

LITTLEMENDLON,
96O Ho,d

.

Prkw.y

SV 300

L Vg NV 89169 9907
702 862 8800

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17-1 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 9

1

that NVHC can admit or deny. Nevertheless to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to allege facts,

2

NVHC denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 11.

3

12.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

4

13.

NVHC is without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the veracity of the

5

allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint that Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and

6

capacities of each Defendant sued as Does 1 through 5, and on that basis denies the same. NVHC

7

denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

$

9

14.

As to itself and no other named defendant, NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph

10

14 of the Complaint that David Matlock (“the Charging Party”) filed a charge of discrimination with

11

the EEOC. NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint to the extent that they

12

suggest that NVHC engaged in any discriminatory practice(s).

13

15.

As to itself and no other named defendant, NVHC admits that on or about August 1 2,

14

2015, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination in which it made a finding of reasonable cause to

15

believe a violation of Title VII had occurred and invited NVHC to join with the EEOC “in a

16

collective effort toward a just resolution” of the matter. NVHC denies the remaining allegations in

17

Paragraph 15 of the Complaint to the extent that they suggest that NVHC engaged in any

1$

discriminatory practice(s).

19

16.

As to itself and no other named defendant, NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph

20

16 of the Complaint that the EEOC engaged in communications with NVHC in an attempt to satisfy

21

its statutory obligation to attempt to conciliate the matter based on its determination. NVHC denies

22

the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint to the extent that they suggest that

23

NVHC engaged in any discriminatory practice(s).

24

17.

As to itself and no other named defendant, NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph

25

of the Complaint that informal methods of conciliation were attempted by the EEOC. NVHC is

26

without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the veracity of the allegations set forth in

27

Paragraph 17 of the Complaint that the Commission was unable to secure a conciliation agreement

28

acceptable to the Commission with UltraCare, and on that basis denies the same.
3.

LITTLERMENDELSON, P.
3960 Howard Hoghe, Parkway
Solo 300
See Swgae NV 89159 5637
702 862 HHCO

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17-1 Filed 10/17/16 Page 5 of 9

1$.

I

As to itself and no other named defendant, NVHC admit the allegations in Paragraph

2

18 of the Complaint that on or about October 21, 2015, the Director of the Las Vegas Local Office

3

of the EEOC, Richard Burgamy, sent a letter on behalf of the EEOC to NVHC indicating that the

4

EEOC had determined “that further conciliation efforts would be futile or non-productive.” NVHC

5

denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19.

6

NVHC is without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the veracity of the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint and on that basis denies the same.

7

20.

8

As to itself and no other named defendant, NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph

20 of the Complaint.

9

21.

10

NVHC is without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the veracity of the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint and on that basis denies the same.

11

22.

12

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint that it entered into a

13

service contract with UltraCare on or about February 11, 2010 for UltraCare to provide quality

14

ultrasound services to Nevada Health Care patients for a daily fee, and that Nevada Health Care

15

would develop and maintain the appointment schedule for the UltraCare ultrasound technician(s) and

16

supply the instruments, supplies and equipment needed. NVHC denies the remaining allegations in

17

Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.

18

23.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.

19

24.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.

20

25.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint that NVHC had a

21

policy requiring a female employee to be present as a chaperone when male doctors, nurses or

22

ultrasound technicians performed procedures involving transvaginal examination or ultrasound.

23

NVHC admits that during the time frame that David Matlock indicated he was assigned by

24

UltraCare to perform ultrasound services at a NVHC facility, seven transvaginal ultrasounds were

25

performed at that facility. NVHC denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 25.

26

26.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.

27

27.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

28

28.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
4.

LITTLER MENDELSON,

.

3660 Hw6 90e Prk*y
Se 300
L V9 NV 80160 5937
762 862 8800

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17-1 Filed 10/17/16 Page 6 of 9

1

29.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.

2

30.

NVHC admits the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint that David Matlock

3

last performed work as an UltraCare employee at a Nevada Health Center Facility on or about

4

January 4, 2013. NVHC denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

5

31.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

6

32.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

7

33.

NVHC denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

$

9

NVHC is not required to respond to Plaintiffs Request and Prayer for Relief. However, to

10

the extent Plaintiffs Request and Prayer for Relief asserts any factual allegations, NVHC denies

11

each and every allegation set forth in Plaintiffs Request and Prayer for Relief.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

12
13

1.

For and as a first, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges

14

that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action or set forth any

15

claim upon which relief can be granted.

16
17
18

2.

For and as a second, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC

alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
3.

For and as a third, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges

19

upon information and belief that any relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled to recover on behalf of

20

the Charging Party is barred and/or limited by the after-acquired evidence doctrine.

21
22
23

4.

For and as a fourth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges

that the Charging Party has failed to mitigate his alleged damages.
5.

For and as a fifth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges

24

that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust all available administrative, statutory and/or contractual

25

remedies.

26

6.

For and as a sixth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges

27

that any actions taken concerning the Charging Party were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory

2$

business reasons consistent with federal laws, state laws and public policies.
5.

LITTLER MENDELSON
3960 HawarO Hughes Psrk*Sy
Su5 300
t.s Vegss NV 69169 9931
702 612 56-00

By asserting this

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17-1 Filed 10/17/16 Page 7 of 9

1

affirmative defense, Defendant is not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s employer or joint

2

employer and Defendant specifically asserts that no such employment relationship with the Charging

3

Party existed.

4

7.

For and as an seventh, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC

5

alleges that any and all acts taken by NVHC were just, fair, privileged, with good cause, in good

6

faith, and without malice. By asserting this affirmative defense, Defendant is not admitting that it

7

was the Charging Party’s employer or joint employer and Defendant specifically asserts that no such

8

employment relationship with the Charging Party existed.

9

8.

For and as an eighth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC

10

alleges that if Plaintiff is adjudged to be entitled to any recovery, then NVHC is entitled to a set-off

11

for any compensation, including without limitation to, unemployment compensation, wages, salaries

12

and/or social security payments, received by Charging Party. By asserting this affirmative defense,

13

Defendant is not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s employer or joint employer and

14

Defendant specifically asserts that no such employment relationship with Plaintiff existed.

15

9.

for and as a ninth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC alleges

16

Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages because the alleged misconduct would be contrary to

17

NVHC’s good faith efforts to comply with the Title VII and any amendments thereto. further, any

18

claim for punitive damages is invalid on its face or as applied to NVHC pursuant to Article IV,

19

Section 2 and the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. By

20

asserting this affirmative defense, Defendant is not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s

21

employer or joint employer and Defendant specifically asserts that no such employment relationship

22

with the Charging Party existed.

23

10.

for and as a tenth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, NVHC is

24

informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by

25

the doctrines of estoppel, laches, and unclean hands.

26

11.

for and as an eleventh, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, any

27

alleged damages under Title VII are limited to any applicable statutory cap including, but not limited

28

to, the statutory cap set forth in 42 U.S.C.

LITTLER MENDELSQN, P
SeCO
NV 8S69-5NV7
702 862 8800

§ 1981(a). By asserting this affirmative defense,
6.

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17-1 Filed 10/17/16 Page 8 of 9

I

Defendant is not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s employer or joint employer and

2

Defendant specifically asserts that no such employment relationship with the Charging Party existed.

3

12.

For and as a twelfth, separate and affirmative defense, NVHC alleges that alleges that

4

NVHC’s conduct towards the Charging Party was fully justified based upon bonafide occupational

5

qualifications. By asserting this affirmative defense, Defendant is not admitting that it was the

6

Charging Party’s employer or joint employer and Defendant specifically asserts that no such

7

employment relationship with the Charging Party existed.

$
9
10
11

13.

For and as a thirteenth, separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that

Plaintiffs claims are barred as to Defendant, in whole or in part, because Defendant was not an
employer or joint employer of the Charging Party.
14.

For and as a fourteenth, separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that it is

12

not legally responsible for any damages claimed by Plaintiff. If, however, Defendant is found to be

13

legally responsible, Defendant’s legal responsibilities are not the sole and proximate cause of any

14

injury, and damages awarded to Plaintiff, if any, should be apportioned according to the respective

15

fault and legal responsibility of all parties, persons and entities, and/or the agents, servants, and

16

employees who contributed to and/or caused said incidents to proof presented at the time of trial. By

17

asserting this affirmative defense, Defendant is not admitting that it was the Charging Party’s

1$

employer or joint employer and Defendant specifically asserts that no such employment relationship

19

with the Charging Party existed.

20

15.

For and as a fifteenth, separate and affirmative defense, because the Complaint is

21

couched in conclusory and vague terms, NVHC cannot fully anticipate all affirmative defenses that

22

may be applicable to this case. Accordingly, NVHC hereby reserves the right to assert additional

23

affirmative defenses.

24

WHEREFORE, Defendant NVHC prays that:

25

1.

26

The Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and that Plaintiff take

nothing by way of its Complaint;

27

2.

Judgment be entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant NVHC;

28

3.

Defendant NVHC be awarded its costs of defense and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and,
7.

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.
3960 HowarO Hu9fl0, Pa,kwy
300
L ve3 NV 89669-5937

702 892 8800

Case 2:16-cv-01495-JAD-PAL Document 17-1 Filed 10/17/16 Page 9 of 9