Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 4

Filed 06/19/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RONALD S. RILEY, Plaintiff, v. THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 07-336 (***) Related Case C.A. No. 05-746 (***)

ANSWER 1. 2. Admitted. Admitted. JURISDICTION 3. This paragraph states a legal conclusion for which no answer is

required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, it is denied. 4. Denied as stated. Admitted that as of March 1, 2003, Plaintiff

Ronald S. Riley ("Riley") was classified as an Airports Operations Clerk. 5. Denied as stated. Admitted that effective March 1, 2003, Riley

was employed by the Airport Safety Department as an Airports Operations Clerk with a pay grade of "P." The remaining allegations are denied. 6. 7. 8. Admitted. Denied. Denied as stated. Admitted that Riley complained to management The remainder of the allegations in this

that his compensation was not adequate. paragraph are denied.

DB01:2408519.1

051649.1014

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 4

Filed 06/19/2007

Page 2 of 5

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Admitted. Denied. Admitted. Admitted. Denied. A) Denied as stated. It is admitted that Riley was informed by Alexander Coles, Airport Operations Manager, ("Coles") that his shoes were inappropriate and that he could not wear them anymore. It is further admitted that Andrew Ritchie, Human Resources Manager, ("Ritchie") indicated generally that loafers were acceptable in the workplace, but agreed upon seeing Mr. Riley's shoes that they were inappropriate. B) Denied as stated. Admitted that Riley returned to work after straining his foot. It is further admitted that Coles stated that Riley's shoes were inappropriate and sent him home. By way of further answer, Coles did not have complete information, including Riley's doctor's order, at that time. Ritchie called Riley that same day and told Riley to return to work, and Riley received full pay for that day. C) Denied. By way of further answer, it is admitted that on October 11, 2006, Coles asked Riley to wait in a room until Coles was available to discuss his accommodations before he returned to active duty. By way of further answer, Riley was only in the room for a short

2
DB01:2408519.1 051649.1014

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 4

Filed 06/19/2007

Page 3 of 5

period of time before he left and went home. Riley received full pay for October 11, 2006. D) Denied. On October 31, 2006 Riley was absent the entire day of work for a sick day. E) Denied as stated. It is admitted that Coles called Riley to question why Riley was in another Delaware River & Bay Authority location, for a significant period of time, while he was on-duty and expected to be at the Airport. F) Denied as stated. It is admitted that Coles called Riley on the afternoon of May 18, 2007, to confirm Riley's work schedule for that day. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant acted at all times on reasonable grounds and in good faith.

3
DB01:2408519.1 051649.1014

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 4

Filed 06/19/2007

Page 4 of 5

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is immune from Plaintiff's tort claims pursuant to 10 Del. C. Ch. 40 and N.J. STAT. ANN. § 59:1-1 et seq. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is immune from Plaintiff's tort claims in accordance with the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims fail in whole or in part because at all times Defendant made a good faith effort to comply with applicable law, acted lawfully and with legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons that were not a pretext for unlawful discrimination. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of Plaintiff's claims are barred for failure to exhaust all available statutory, administrative, or contractual remedies. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some of or all Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable federal or state statutes of limitations. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of Plaintiff's claims are barred under the workers' compensation exclusivity rule. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the individual defendants under Title VII because individuals are not liable under Title VII.

4
DB01:2408519.1 051649.1014

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 4

Filed 06/19/2007

Page 5 of 5

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the individual defendants under § 1983 because the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP /s/ Adria B. Martinelli__________________________ William W. Bowser, Esquire (Bar I.D. 2239) Adria B. Martinelli, Esquire (Bar I.D. 4056) The Brandywine Building, 17th Floor 1000 West Street P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0391 Telephone: (302) 571-6601, 6613 Facsimile: (302) 576-3282, 3314 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant

DATED:

June 19, 2007

5
DB01:2408519.1 051649.1014