Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 97.7 kB
Pages: 4
Date: February 6, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 691 Words, 4,586 Characters
Page Size: 609.882 x 791.633 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/37446/15.pdf

Download Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware ( 97.7 kB)


Preview Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :06-cv-00740-GI\/IS Document 15 Filed O2/06/2007 Page 1 of 4
. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
EDWARD A. BILISKI )
Plaintiff, _ ) _
)
v. ) C.A. No. G6-740-GMS
)
RED CLAY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL .)
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) T
IRWIN J. BECNEL, IR., CHARLES )
CAVANAUGH, GARY LINARDUCCI, )p I
JAMES J. BUCKLEY, MARGUERITE ) T
VAVALA, YVONNE JOHNSON, )
MARTTN A. WTLSDN, SR, individually )
and in their official capacities as members )
ofthe Red Clay Consolidated School )
' District Board of Education, ROBERT )
J. ANDRZEJEWSKI, individually and in )
his official capacity as Superintendent of )
Red Clay Consolidated School District; and )
RED CLAY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL )
DISTRTCT, )
)
Defendants. ) .
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendants answer Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: _
1. This paragraph states a legal conclusion as to which no response is
required. By way of further answer, defendants deny that plaintiffs claims have legal or factual
merit.
n 2. This paragraph states a legal conclusion as to which no response is
required. By way of further answer, defendants deny that plaintiffs claims have legal or factual
l merit.
l
l ns¤z¤svszaos.i asimiocs
l

Case 1 :06-cv-00740-GI\/IS Document 15 Filed O2/06/2007 Page 2 of 4
3. Admitted that plaintiff was employed by defendant Red Clay Consolidated
School District Board of Education in the geographic area ofthe State of Delaware. it is denied
‘ that piaintiff s claims have factual or legal merit.
THE PARTIES
4. Admitted upon infomation and belief that plaintiff is a mal citizen ofthe
United States and a resident ofNew Castle County, State of Delaware. It is also admitted that
plaintiff was formerly employed as a computer technician by defendant, Red Clay Consolidated
_ School District Board of Education.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted. x
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted. =
9. This paragraph states a legal conclusion as to which no response is
required. By way of further answer, defendants deny that plaintiffs claims have legal or factual _
merit. _
FACTS COMMON T0 ALL COUNTS
l0. Admitted that plaintiff was hired by a Defendant of Red Clay
Consolidated School District Board of Education, on or about March 21, 2001 and that his
employment was terminated on August 8, 2006, effective 8/ l I/06. Admitted that on August 8,
i 2006, plaintiff met with Ted Ammann, Manager of Technology, and Debra Davenport, the
District’s Manager of Human Resources.
l 1. Admitted that Plaintiff received copies ofthe documents attached as
Exhibits l through 3 respectively to his complaint. Each memorandum speaks for itself. it is
l oss2¤srs2sc6.1 0617751006
l

4 Case 1 :06-cv-00740-Gl\/IS Document 15 Filed O2/06/2007 Page 3 of 4
further admitted that on August S, 2006 Plaintiff received the letter attached to the Complaint as
Exhibit 4.
12. Denied. -
13. Denied.
CLAIMS ARISING UNDER 42 U.S.C.. §1983
14. Defendants repeat and reailege their answers to Paragraphs l tlnough 13
I as if fully set forth herein.
15. Denied. l
16. Denied.
17. Denied.
1 8. Denied.
19. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. I
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs 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.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by his failure to mitigate damages.
l
l
W DB02:5732306.i 061 ws. :006

Case 1 :06-cv-00740-Gl\/IS Document 15 Filed O2/06/2007 Page 4 of 4
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE _
Plaintiffs Complaint may be denied in whole or in part with the doctrine of after-
acquired evidence.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The individual defendants are entitled to Qualified Immunity from the suit.

WBIEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this action be dismissed with
prejudice, with costs and atto1·neys’ fees assessed against Plaintiff.
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
/s/ Ba__1·1;y M. Willoughby
Barry M. Willoughby, Esquire (1.D. No. 1016) I
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 17th Floor `
P.O. Box 391
Wilmington, DE 19899-0391
Telephone: (302) 571 -6666
Facsimile: (302) 576-3345
Email: bwilloaghby(@,ycst.com
Attorney for Defendants, Red Clay Consolidated
School District Board of Education, et al.
Dated: February 6, 2007
i
l os<:·2;sts22a6.i usmaiuoa
1