Free Respone to Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00555-JJF Document 11 Filed O1/25/2008 Page 1 of 3 I
II In the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Xi¤¤1¤¤¤Zh=¤¤e t a
Plaintiff ‘ ‘ ` L II D Case No. 07-555
VS. tl I II I _ I, I
r its 2 5 2000 ey »; ,
ING Direct 2 g (ogg Jpgy/dl Jury Trial Demanded
Defendant i· F tf l
_, A oiirmc or wa . . r 5 q
Plaintiff, Xianhua Zhang‘s Pleading To Defendant l E
ING Direct’s Affirmative Defenses I
1. Denied, Allegation is contradictory to the facts and groundless. Plaintiff has submitted I
plenty of evidences in Complaints. _
2. Denied. Plaintiff was discharged illegally on August 16, 2005 by ING Direct and filed the
charge with EEOC on May 30, 2006 that is within 300 day Time—Frame set by the law.
3. Denied. Plaintiff has submitted plenty of evidences in Complaints to prove that he is fully
qualified for the job and much better than his much younger replacement.
4. Denied. Plaintiff has submitted plenty of evidences in.Complaints.· · _ . ·. _
5. Denied. Plaintiff has submitted plenty-- of evidences in Complaints. Because of
Defendant’s illegal- discharge, Plaintiff -has suffered lost of wage-, benefits, personal time
off pay and business off time pay. In addition, both Plaintiff and his family have suffered
physically and emotionally. ‘
6. Denied. ADA protects a person as legally disabled if the person falls into one of the I
following three categories: l. Person has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits a maj or life activity. 2. Person has a record or history of impairment. I _
3. Person is regarded by employer—even incorrectly———as having a disability. Based on
evidences, all three categories work for my ADA claim because I am a qualified '
employee who had approved that I can perform the job of Database Support Engineer III I
successfully but was discharged due to my disabilities and the fact that Defendant Q
considered my impairments as an unconquerable obstacle to work and type with speed
that meets her requirements. The discharge definitely violates ADA law. l
7. Denied. Plaintiff has submitted plenty o_f evidences in Complaints·thatI;are supported by I
. his own experience_s_Iand Defendantis illegal discriminations. .-j _ . -_ -
8. Denied. Plaintiff has submitted plenty of evidences in Complaints. that are supported by
his own experiences and Defendant’s illegal discriminations.
9. Denied. Facts speak louder than words.
l

Case 1 :07-cv-00555-JJF Document 11 Filed O1/25/2008 Page 2 of 3
10. Denied. Plaintiff was discharged illegally on August 16, 2005 by ING Direct and filed the
charge with EEOC on May 30, 2006 that is within 300 day Time-Frame set by the law.
ll. Denied. Plaintiff was never given a chance to exhaust his administrative during his short
tenure with Defendant. Because Plaintiff is Asian American, Defendant discharged him .
rudely and gave him no chances for arguments. Plaintiff was not allowed to go back to
him desk to pick up his personal belongings. The security guard even accompanied him
_ to the rest room and marched him out to his car in the face of other people. Such actions
damaged his reputation and conveyed a negative message to the public that he was
dishonest and not be trusted to stay around or to leave ING Direct unaccompanied. In
addition, Defendant promised Plaintiff to bring all his personal belongings without
touching them during the discharge meeting when Plaintiff was confmed to that small
room. However, when Plaintiff found that many of his personal were missing and sent
two emails to Defendant to try to get them back on 8/25/05 and 8/29/05 with no reply.
All these showed Defendant’s ugly face toward a minority worker. Such decision and
manner not only violated EEOC race law but also violated Plaintiffs basic human rights.
Here Plaintiff challenges Defendant: Do you always seize personal belongings of
discharged people? Do you always not allow discharged people to pick up their personal
belongings? Do you always search personal belongings of discharged people without
them knowing and standing by? Do you always use secnrity guard to accompany
discharged people to the rest rooms and to leave the property? Do you always deny
discharged people of PTO pay and business time off pay?
12. Denied. Plaintiff informed his manager about his disability/impairments during his first
and second job evaluations and requested more time and practices to improve his typing
skills and working speed as reasonable accommodation.
I3. Denied. Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, does protect people from
discrimination on the basis of age and disability.
I4. Denied. Plaintiff did request reasonable accommodation. Defendant did nothing for it.
WHEREF ORE, Plaintiff, Xianhua Zhang, prays that the Court grant judgment in his favor and
against Defendant, ING Direct plus costs of this suit. -
Respectfiilly submitted,
X at v
Xianhua Zhang
‘ riaaiiiiwu-_--_mm
Date: ’[}5[ )’l»"°g
2

‘ Case 1 :07-cv-00555-JJF Document 11 Filed O1/25/2008 Page 3 of 3
1 @13:2;;; LQ? ocx
L “?§E§’r§Q§ "" I
01 CE 1 ";G;3;.1_ I ¢:>
wgxx
`- Z1? 1 Q 1 · Gx; .,E
\\ _ 1; g w Q-... WE
- _f ... 4- @
. 1 € 1 .=~;>1\\§ - $3
A 1 1 ' § - [3 °=)
` {Q #
1 Y *3; \" M aaaa *
1 1 I 2
I 1_1 1 1.13
1 ‘1"3 $31 1
1 1 as; I 1
UA :
1;}%
V ·¢-¤i E
= %
1 1 1 1 %§a
1 1 1 _ 1 1 ‘·"* j
n 1$ {
· ~ 1 1 E O E ‘ ` - 1 M
1 °‘ g? L ` l I
‘ Q3 2 1 1
` ‘ eu § E
E V E
1 -»-1· 1 1111 1
· ` · 11:51% aww? 1 A * ` ‘
,-1’j 1 ` 1 1 1 * `‘:" "

Case 1:07-cv-00555-JJF

Document 11

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00555-JJF

Document 11

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00555-JJF

Document 11

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 3 of 3