Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01469-SLR Document 21 Filed O9/30/2005 Page 1 of 3
, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Stanford L. Burris :
Plaintiff,
: Civ. No. O4-1469-SLR
v. :
Richards Paving, Inc.
Defendant
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RICHARDS PAVING, INC.,
TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
l. Upon information and belief, admitted.
2. Upon information and belief, admitted.
3. Upon information and belief, admitted.
4. Upon information and belief admitted.
5. Upon information and belief, admitted.
6. Upon information and belief, admitted.
7. Upon information and belief, admitted.
8. Upon information and belief, admitted.
9. Upon information and belief, admitted.
10. Upon information and belief admitted.
ll. Upon information and belief, admitted.
l2. Upon information and belief, admitted.
13. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of this averment.

Case 1:04-cv-01469-SLR Document 21 Filed O9/30/2005 Page 2 of 3
14. Defendant is without knowledge or infomation sufficient to fom a belief as to the truth
of this avement.
l5. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to fom a belief as to the truth
of this avement.
16. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to fom a belief as to the truth
of this avement.
l 7. Denied.
l 8. Denied.
l9. Defendant is without knowledge or infomation sufficient to fom a belief as to the truth
of this avement.
20. Defendant is without knowledge or infomation sufficient to fom a belief as to the truth
of this avement.
2l. Defendant is without knowledge or infomation sufficient to fom a belief as to the tmth
of this avement.
22. Denied.
23. Denied.
24. Denied.
25. Denied.
26. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
29. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, estoppel and
waiver.

Case 1:04-cv-01469-SLR Document 21 Filed O9/30/2005 Page 3 of 3
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
30. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim of disability discrimination.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
31. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of statute of limitations.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
32. Pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 12113(a), plaintiff was not hired by Richards Paving for job
related reasons and consistent with business necessity.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
33. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12113(b), plaintiff posed a direct threat to the health and safety of
other individuals in the workplace.
WHEREFORE defendant Richards Paving, Inc., demands that this case be
dismissed with prejudice.
ELZUFON AUSTIN REARDON
TARLOV & MONDELL, P.A.
/s/ Matthew P. Donelson
Matthew P. Donelson, Esquire
Del ID # 4243
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1700
P.O. Box 1630
Wilmington, DE 19899-1630
(302) 428-3181
Attorney for Defendant
Richards Paving, Inc.
DATED: 09/29/05