Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-04787-JW

Document 23

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JOHN C. KLOOSTERMAN, Bar No. 182625 JORJA E. JACKSON, Bar No. 226707 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 07-CV-4787 JW (RS) DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Defendant

NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC. ("Novellus" or

"Defendant") and answer Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("Plaintiff") First Amended Complaint as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Answering paragraph 1 , Defendant admits that the cited statutory references

state what they state. Defendant also admits that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1. 2. Answering paragraph 2, Defendant admits that its principal place of business,

and the workplace of charging party Michael Cooke, is located in San Jose, California, which is in Santa Clara County, California and, thus, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT(NO. 07-CV-4787 JW (RS) )

Case 5:07-cv-04787-JW

Document 23

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

for the Northern District of California (San Jose Division). Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2. 3. Answering paragraph 3, Defendant admits venue is proper in this Court.

Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3. PARTIES 4. Answering paragraph 4, Defendant asserts that the allegations in paragraph 4

are legal conclusions and therefore do not require a response. 5. 6. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. Answering paragraph 7, Defendant admits that Mr. Cooke filed a charge with

the EEOC more than 30 days prior to the date the EEOC filed its complaint. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Defendant denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 8. Defendant denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 9. Defendant denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 10. Answering paragraph 11, Defendant admits Plaintiff's employment was

terminated on October 15, 2004. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11. 12. 13. 14. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12. Defendant denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 13. Defendant denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 14. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any action or to

set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. To the extent Charging Party Michael Cooke has suffered any damages, which

Defendant denies, he has failed to mitigate his damages. 3. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or part, by the statute of limitations. 2.

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(NO. 07-CV-4787 JW (RS) )

Case 5:07-cv-04787-JW

Document 23

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

4.

Plaintiff failed to adequately comply with the statutory prerequisites to

bringing this action, including the requirement that it endeavor in good faith to eliminate alleged unlawful employment practices by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion as required by Section 706 of Title VII. 5. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the employment

actions complained about were taken for legitimate, non-retaliatory business reasons. 6. Pleading in the alternative, and without waiving Plaintiff's burden to prove

that alleged adverse employment actions were motivated by impermissible factors, Defendant would have taken the same action in the absence of the alleged impermissible motivating factors. 7. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. 8. Defendant is not liable for any intentional, wrongful acts or any malicious acts

allegedly committed by its employees or agents. 9. 10. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. Defendant is not liable for punitive damages because neither it, nor its

officers, directors or managing agents committed any knowing, wanton, intentional, recklessly indifferent or malicious act, and because Defendant did not authorize or ratify any such act. 11. Defendant is not liable for punitive damages because Plaintiff has failed to

plead facts supporting such damages with particularity. 12. Defendant avers that all of its actions were taken in good faith and it did not

know or believe that any of its actions violated federal law. 13. 14. Plaintiff's claim is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Defendant at all times exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly

correct any harassing, discriminatory or retaliatory behavior, and Charging Party Cooke unreasonably failed to take advantage of Defendant's preventative or corrective opportunities or to otherwise avoid harm. 15. Defendant reserves the right to amend its Answer to raise additional defenses

that may become available during the discovery process.
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(NO. 07-CV-4787 JW (RS) )

3.

Case 5:07-cv-04787-JW

Document 23

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that: 1. 2. 3. 4. Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; Plaintiff take nothing by way of its Complaint; Defendants be awarded attorneys' fees and costs of suit herein; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Dated: February 14, 2008

_______/s/____________________________ JOHN C. KLOOSTERMAN LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(NO. 07-CV-4787 JW (RS) )

4.