Free Answer - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00338-NBF

Document 9

Filed 09/13/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

EDWARD F. CHANNELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 07-338C (Judge Nancy B. Firestone)

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER For its answer to the complaint filed on May 31, 2007, defendant admits, denies, and avers as follows: I. Subject Matter Of Complaint 1. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 that the individuals named as plaintiffs are or were employed as GS-391 telecommunications specialists by the United States Government; the remaining allegations in paragraph 1 are plaintiffs' characterizations of their claims and conclusions of law to which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. II. Jurisdiction And Venue 2. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 are conclusions of law to which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. III. Parties 3. Admits the allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 3, that plaintiff Roger Levi is currently "a resident of Reston, Virginia," to the extent supported by the consent form attached to plaintiffs' complaint, which is the best evidence of its contents; admits the

Case 1:07-cv-00338-NBF

Document 9

Filed 09/13/2007

Page 2 of 4

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 3 that plaintiff Roger Levi is currently employed as a GS-391-13 telecommunications specialist for the Voice of America, Broadcasting Board of Governors in Washington, D.C. 4. Admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 4, that the remaining plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Voice of America, Broadcasting Board of Governors in Washington, D.C.; admits the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 4 to the extent supported by the documents cited, which are the best evidence of their contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4. 5. The allegations contained in paragraph 5 are conclusions of law to which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 6. The allegations contained in paragraph 6 are conclusions of law to which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. IV. Facts 7. The allegations contained in the first and second sentences of paragraph 7 are conclusions of law to which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. Defendant denies the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 7. 8. Admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 8, that at all material times the plaintiffs have worked as telecommunications specialists, to the extent supported by the written consent forms attached to plaintiffs' complaint, which are the best evidence of their contents; otherwise denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. 2

Case 1:07-cv-00338-NBF

Document 9

Filed 09/13/2007

Page 3 of 4

9. Denies. 10. Denies. 11. Denies. 12. The allegations contained in paragraph 12 are conclusions of law to which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 13. The allegations contained in paragraph 13 are conclusions of law to which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 14. The allegations contained in paragraph 14 are conclusions of law to which no response is required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 15. Denies that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief set forth in the prayer for relief immediately following paragraph 14, or to any relief whatsoever. 16. Denies each and every allegation not previously admitted or otherwise qualified. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. To the extent that the defendant is found to have violated the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., or any other applicable statute, its violations occurred notwithstanding its good faith efforts to comply with the terms of such statutes and were not willful. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

3

Case 1:07-cv-00338-NBF

Document 9

Filed 09/13/2007

Page 4 of 4

/s/ Todd D. Hughes TODD D. HUGHES Deputy Director OF COUNSEL: ELIZABETH PARISH Assistant General Counsel Broadcasting Board of Governors 330 Independence Avenue, Room 3349 Washington, D.C. 20237 Telephone: (202) 203-4550 /s/ Ellen M. Lynch ELLEN M. LYNCH Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 353-7994 Facscimile: (202) 514-8624

September 13, 2007

Attorneys for Defendant

4