EE-AZ-0050-0010

Document Sample
EE-AZ-0050-0010 Powered By Docstoc
					 1   Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
     Yvette A. Heintzelman (admitted pro hac vice)
 2   Seyfarth Shaw LLP
     55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200
 3   Chicago, Illinois 60603
     Telephone: (312) 346-8000
 4   Facsimile: (312) 269-8869
     E-mail: yheintzelman@seyfarth.com
 5
     James M. Nelson (AZ Bar No. 7466)
 6   Seyfarth Shaw LLP
     400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
 7   Sacramento, California 95814-4428
     Telephone: (916) 448-0159
 8   Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
 9   Attorneys for Defendants
     Cindy Keppel and Herb Keppel
10
                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

12   EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )
     COMMISSION,                       )
13                                     )
                  Plaintiffs,          )
14         v.                          )
                                       )
15   GLC RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a       )
     McDONALD’S RESTAURANT, an Arizona )
16   corporation,                      )                Case No. CV05-0618 PCT-PGR
                                       )
17                Defendant.           )
                                       )
18

19   JESSICA J. TUBANDT, AMANDA                )         DEFENDANTS CINDY KEPPEL
     HENRY, TIARA M. BRAZLE, AND               )        AND HERB KEPPEL’S AMENDED
20   TAMARA A. GRUBBS,                         )            ANSWER TO AMENDED
                                               )               COMPLAINT OF
21                  Plaintiffs/Interveners,    )          PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENERS
             v.                                )          TUBANDT, HENRY, BRAZLE
22                                             )                AND GRUBBS
     GLC RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a               )
23   McDONALD’S RESTAURANT, an Arizona )
     corporation; Steven Alan Ehresman and     )
24   Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife; )
     Cindy Keppel and Herb Keppel (erroneously )
25   identified as John Doe Keppel), wife and  )
     husband,                                  )
26
                      Defendant.
27
28                                             -1   -

     CH1 11003337.2
 1            Defendants, Cindy Keppel and Herb Keppel, by and through their attorneys,
 2
     Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and for their Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’/Interveners’ Amended
 3
     Complaint, state as follows:
 4

 5
                                             PARTIES
     COMPLAINT ¶ 1:
 6
 7
           Jessica J. Tubandt is a single woman and is a resident of Yavapai County,
     Arizona.
 8   ANSWER:
 9
              Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in
10
     paragraph 1 of the complaint.
11
     COMPLAINT ¶ 2:
12
              Amanda Henry is a single woman and is a resident of Yavapai County, Arizona.
13
     ANSWER:
14
15            Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in

16   paragraph 2 of the complaint.
17   COMPLAINT ¶ 3:
18            Tiara M. Brazle is a single woman and is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
19   ANSWER:
20
              Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in
21
     paragraph 3 of the complaint.
22
     COMPLAINT ¶ 4:
23
           Tamara A. Grubbs is a single woman and is a resident of Yavapai County,
24   Arizona.
25   ANSWER:
26
              Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in
27
     paragraph 4 of the complaint.
28
                                                 -2-
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 5:

 2         Defendant GLC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant (hereinafter
     “McDonald’s”), is an Arizona corporation authorized to and doing business in the state of
 3   Arizona.
 4   ANSWER:

 5            Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in
 6
     paragraph 5 of the complaint.
 7
     COMPLAINT ¶ 6:
 8
            Defendants Steven A. Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman are husband and wife
 9   and are residents of Yavapai County, Arizona.
10   ANSWER:

11            Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in
12
     paragraph 6 of the complaint.
13
     COMPLAINT ¶ 7:
14
            All acts and/or obligations of Defendant, Steven A. Ehresman, hereinafter set
15   forth, were committed and/or incurred on behalf of the marital community of Steven A.
     Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, which is, therefore, responsible for same.
16
     ANSWER:
17
              Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
18

19   contained in paragraph 7 of the complaint and on the that basis, deny them.

20   COMPLAINT ¶ 8:

21          Defendants Cindy Keppel and John Doe Keppel are wife and husband and are
     residents of Yavapai County, Arizona.
22
     ANSWER:
23
              Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the complaint.
24
     COMPLAINT ¶ 9:
25
          All acts and/or obligations of Defendant Cindy Keppel hereinafter set forth, were
26   committed and/or incurred on behalf of the marital community of Cindy Keppel and John
     Doe Keppel, which is, therefore, responsible for same.
27
28
                                                 -3-
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   ANSWER:

 2            Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the complaint.
 3                                JURISDICTION AND VENUE
 4   COMPLAINT ¶ 10:
 5         This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims against Defendant
 6
     McDonald’s pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345 and 42 U.S.C. §§
     2000e et seq.
 7   ANSWER:
 8
              Defendants admit that the court has jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§
 9
     1331 and 1345 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.            Defendants deny each and every
10
11   remaining allegation contained in paragraph 10 of the complaint.

12   COMPLAINT ¶ 11:

13         This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state common law claims against
     Defendants McDonald’s, Ehresman and Keppel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
14
     ANSWER:
15
              Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the complaint.
16
     COMPLAINT ¶ 12:
17
            Defendants McDonald’s, Ehresman and Keppel and/or their agents, servants or
18   employees all acted in Yavapai County, Arizona, or caused events to occur in Yavapai
     County, Arizona out of which Plaintiffs’ claims arise and, therefore, venue is proper in
19   this Court.
20   ANSWER:
21
              Defendants admit that venue is proper in this court.       Defendants deny any
22
     violation of the law and each and every remaining allegation contained in paragraph 12 of
23

24   the complaint.

25                                  STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
26   COMPLAINT ¶ 13:

27          Defendant McDonald’s owns and operates several McDonald’s Restaurants in
     northern Arizona, including the McDonald’s Restaurant located in Cordes Junction,
28   Arizona, and at all times material hereto has had at least 15 employees.
                                                 -4-
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   ANSWER:

 2            Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in
 3
     paragraph 13 of the complaint.
 4
     COMPLAINT ¶ 14:
 5
           Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt is currently 19 years old and began working at
 6   Defendant McDonald’s Cordes Junction Restaurant, her first job, on or about May 2002.
 7   ANSWER:

 8            Upon information and belief, Defendantss admit that Jessica J. Tubandt began
 9
     working at the McDonald’s Restaurant in Cordes Junction on May 15, 2002 and that
10
     Plaintiff Tubandt’s birthday is December 16, 1985. Defendants deny each and every
11

12   remaining allegation contained in paragraph 14 of the complaint.

13   COMPLAINT ¶ 15:

14       Plaintiff Amanda Henry is currently 19 years old and began working at Defendant
     McDonald’s Cordes Junction Restaurant, her first job, on or about July 2002.
15
     ANSWER:
16
              Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that Amanda Henry began
17
18   working at the McDonald’s Restaurant in Cordes Junction on July 18, 2002 and that

19   Plaintiff Henry’s birthday is June 27, 1986. Defendants deny each and every remaining
20
     allegation contained in paragraph 15 of the complaint.
21
     COMPLAINT ¶ 16:
22
         Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle is currently 18 years old and began working at Defendant
23   McDonald’s Cordes Junction Restaurant, her first job, on or about August 2002.
24   ANSWER:

25            Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that Tiara M. Brazle began
26
     working at the McDonald’s Restaurant in Cordes Junction on July 30, 2002 and that
27
28
                                               -5-
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   Plaintiff Brazle’s birthday is August 22, 1986.      Defendants deny each and every
 2
     remaining allegation contained in paragraph 16 of the complaint.
 3
     COMPLAINT ¶ 17:
 4
         Plaintiff Tamara Grubbs is currently 18 years old and began working at Defendant
 5   McDonald’s Cordes Junction Restaurant, her first job, on or about September 2000.
 6   ANSWER:

 7            Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that Tamara Grubbs began
 8
     working at the McDonald’s Restaurant in Cordes Junction in October of 2000 and that
 9
     Plaintiff Grubbs’ birthday is September 25, 1986. Defendants deny each and every
10
11   remaining allegation contained in paragraph 17 of the complaint.

12   COMPLAINT ¶ 18:

13          Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, at all material times hereto, was employed as an
     Assistant Manager in a supervisory capacity by Defendant McDonald’s.
14
     ANSWER:
15
              Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that Steve Ehresman was
16
17   employed as an Assistant Manager at the Cordes Junction McDonald’s from January 15,

18   2001 to September 24, 2002. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation
19
     contained in paragraph 18 of the complaint.
20
     COMPLAINT ¶ 19:
21
           In his capacity as Assistant Manager, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, had
22   supervisory responsibility over Plaintiffs and other subordinate employees which
     responsibility included various human resource functions, such as hiring, training,
23   scheduling, discipline, job assignment, and firing of these employees.
24   ANSWER:

25            Defendants admit that Steve Ehresman was the Assistant Manager and had
26
     authority to hire, train, schedule and assign employees. Defendants deny each and every
27
     remaining allegation contained in paragraph 19 of the complaint.
28
                                               -6-
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 20:

 2          In his capacity as Assistant Manager and supervisor of subordinates, Defendant
     Steven A. Ehresman worked in close proximity with his subordinate employees,
 3   including Plaintiffs herein.
 4   ANSWER:

 5            Defendants admit that Steve Ehresman worked in the same building as Plaintiffs.
 6
     Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation contained in paragraph 20 of the
 7
     complaint.
 8
     COMPLAINT ¶ 21:
 9
10
            All actions of Defendant Steven A. Ehresman alleged herein, were in furtherance
     of, on behalf of the interest of and within the scope of his employment with his employer
11
     Defendant McDonald’s.
     ANSWER:
12
13            Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations

14   contained in paragraph 21 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.
15   COMPLAINT ¶ 22:
16         Defendant Cindy Keppel at all material times hereto was employed as a Manager
     by Defendant McDonald’s.
17
     ANSWER:
18

19            Defendants admit that Cindy Keppel was employed as a Manager at the Cordes

20   Junction McDonald’s from 2001 to present. Defendants deny each and every remaining
21
     allegation contained in paragraph 22 of the complaint.
22
     COMPLAINT ¶ 23:
23
            In her capacity as Manager, Defendant Cindy Keppel had supervisory
24   responsibility over Plaintiffs, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman and others. In her capacity
     as manager, Defendant Cindy Keppel was responsible for the assignment of job functions
25   for Defendant Steven A. Ehresman.
26

27
28
                                                -7-
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   ANSWER:

 2            Defendants admit that Cindy Keppel was Steven A. Ehresman’s supervisor and
 3
     that she assigned Steven A. Ehresman job assignments. Defendants also admit that
 4
     Cindy Keppel supervised other employees. Defendants deny each and every remaining
 5

 6   allegation contained in paragraph 23 of the complaint.

 7   COMPLAINT ¶ 24:

 8          Beginning in the latter part of 2001, and continuing through September, 2002,
     Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, in his capacity as Assistant Manager for Defendant
 9   McDonald’s, engaged in constant illegal, inappropriate, and/or offensive conduct toward
     Plaintiffs, and others, which included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
10
              (a)     placing his hand and arm over Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle’s right shoulder
11                    and groping her right breast;
12            (b)     standing close to Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle so that his leg and/or body
                      rubbed against her leg and/or body;
13
              (c)     grabbing and rubbing Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle’s hands while she made
14                    change for the cash register;
15            (d)     massaging and rubbing the shoulders of Plaintiff Amanda Henry;
16            (e)     slapping the thighs of Plaintiff Amanda Henry;
17            (f)     rubbing the belly of Plaintiff Amanda Henry;
18            (g)     placing his hands in the pants pocket of Plaintiff Tamara A. Grubbs;
19            (h)     grabbing the hands of Plaintiff Tamara A. Grubbs;
20            (i)     grabbing the hands of Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt;
21            (j)     touching Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt around her waist;
22            (k)     rubbing the stomach of Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt;
23            (l)     rubbing the sides of Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt; and
24            (m)     massaging the shoulders of Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt.
25   ANSWER:

26            Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
27
     contained in paragraph 24 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.
28
                                                    -8-
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 25:

 2          From late 2001 to September 2002, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, in his
     capacity as an assistant manager of Defendant McDonald’s, engaged in illegal,
 3   inappropriate and/or offensive verbal communications directed at Plaintiffs which
     included, but was not limited to:
 4
              (a)     a statement to Plaintiff Tamara A. Grubbs when she pulled out her pants
 5                    pocket, that Mr. Ehresman wanted to “lick between the bunny ears”;
 6            (b)     a statement to Plaintiff Tamara A. Grubbs that she had “beautiful hands”;
 7            (c)     repeated questions to Plaintiff Amanda Henry asking whether she had a
                      boyfriend;
 8
              (d)     comments by Steven A. Ehresman to Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle that she had
 9                    “pretty hair”;
10            (e)     statements to Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt that Steven A. Ehresman wanted
                      to “bend her over and spank her”;
11
              (f)     a statement to Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt that Steven A. Ehresman “liked
12                    her”;
13            (g)     a statement to Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt that Steven A. Ehresman wanted
                      to “lay her down and spread her legs open”.
14
     ANSWER:
15
              Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
16
17   contained in paragraph 25 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.

18   COMPLAINT ¶ 26:

19          In late 2001 to September 2002, Steven A. Ehresman, in his capacity as an
     assistant manager of Defendant McDonald’s, engaged in illegal, inappropriate and
20   offensive physical and verbal conduct involving those other than Plaintiffs, some in
     Plaintiffs’ presence, which included, but was not limited to:
21
              (a)     regular incidents of hugging of co-employees;
22
              (b)     regular incidents of kissing of co-employees;
23
              (c)     whispering in the ears of female co-employees;
24
              (d)     constant “dirty” talking and/or telling dirty jokes loud enough for other
25                    employees, including Plaintiffs, and even customers to hear;
26            (e)     placing his hands in the pockets of the shirts and pants of other female
                      coemployees;
27
              (f)     numerous references to oral sex;
28
                                                   -9-
     CH1 11003337.2
 1            (g)     rubbing/holding hands of other female co-employees;
 2            (h)     a statement made to a female co-employee, in the presence of a customer,
                      that he wanted the employee to jump up on the counter so he could have
 3                    her for lunch.
 4   ANSWER:

 5            Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
 6
     contained in paragraph 26 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.
 7
     COMPLAINT ¶ 27:
 8
           Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ parents reported to Plaintiffs’ supervisors, including
 9   Defendant Cindy Keppel, illegal, inappropriate and/or offensive conduct of Defendant
     Steven A. Ehresman directed toward Plaintiffs and others. Defendants McDonald’s and
10   Cindy Keppel did nothing in response and assisted and allowed the actions to continue.
11   ANSWER:

12            Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 27 of the
13
     complaint.
14
     COMPLAINT ¶ 28:
15
           At least one customer complained of the inappropriate verbal conduct of
16   Defendant Steven A. Ehresman. This complaint was referred to an assistant manager of
     Defendant McDonald’s, and this customer’s complaint was referred by this assistant
17   manager to supervisors including Defendant Cindy Keppel. Defendants McDonald’s and
     Cindy Keppel did nothing in response and assisted and allowed the actions to continue.
18
     ANSWER:
19
              Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 28 of the
20
21   complaint.

22   COMPLAINT ¶ 29:

23         Based upon the nature and frequency of the illegal, inappropriate and/or offensive
     conduct of Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, and/or based upon reports to Defendants
24   McDonald’s and Cindy Keppel, Defendants McDonald’s and Cindy Keppel were actually
     aware of and/or should have been aware of the illegal, inappropriate and/or offensive
25   conduct of Defendant Steven A. Ehresman.
26

27
28
                                                 - 10 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   ANSWER:

 2            Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 29 of the
 3
     complaint.
 4
     COMPLAINT ¶ 30:
 5
           Prior to working at the restaurant at Cordes Junction, Arizona, owned by
 6   Defendant McDonald’s, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman was employed by Defendant
     McDonald’s in at least one other restaurant owned by Defendant McDonald’s.
 7
     ANSWER:
 8
              Upon information and belief, Defendants admit Mr. Ehresman worked at the
 9
10   McDonald’s restaurant located in Camp Verde, Arizona prior to working at the

11   McDonald’s in Cordes Junction, Arizona. Defendants deny each and every remaining
12
     allegation contained in paragraph 30 of the complaint.
13
     COMPLAINT ¶ 31:
14
            Prior to his employment at the restaurant in Cordes Junction, Arizona, owned by
15   Defendant McDonald’s, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, while employed by Defendant
     McDonald’s at another of its restaurants, engaged in similar illegal, inappropriate and
16   offensive conduct toward his subordinates.
17   ANSWER:

18            Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
19
     contained in paragraph 31 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.
20
     COMPLAINT ¶ 32:
21
           Defendant McDonald’s was informed and aware of Defendant Steven A.
22   Ehresman’s propensity to commit illegal, inappropriate and offensive conduct toward his
     subordinates, even before he began working at the restaurant in Cordes Junction,
23   Arizona, owned by Defendant McDonald’s.
24   ANSWER:

25            Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
26
     contained in paragraph 32 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.
27
28
                                               - 11 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 33:

 2          Upon information and belief, Defendant Cindy Keppel was informed and aware of
     Defendant Steven A. Ehresman’s propensity to commit illegal, inappropriate and
 3   offensive conduct toward his subordinates, even before he began working at the
     restaurant in Cordes Junction, Arizona, owned by Defendant McDonald’s.
 4
     ANSWER:
 5
               Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 33 of the
 6
 7   complaint.

 8   COMPLAINT ¶ 34:

 9           As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants and each of
     them, as more fully alleged below, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their persons,
10   causing physical and mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, diminished quality of
     life, and a loss of past and future earnings and income.
11
     ANSWER:
12
               Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 34 of the
13

14   complaint.

15   COMPLAINT ¶ 35:

16          The actions of Defendants alleged herein were consciously pursued by Defendants
     to serve their own interests knowing that it created a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiffs
17   and/or those actions were motivated by spite and/or ill will and support an award of
     punitive damages against all Defendants.
18
     ANSWER:
19
               Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 35 of the
20
21   complaint.

22                                             COUNT 1

23   COMPLAINT ¶ 36:

24             Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
     herein.
25
     ANSWER:
26
               Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
27
28   paragraphs 1 through 35 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                                                 - 12 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 37:

 2         Plaintiffs timely filed charges with the United States Equal Employment
     Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”) on or about March 17, 2003.
 3
     ANSWER:
 4
              Defendants admit that plaintiffs filed charges, but deny that such charges were
 5

 6   timely. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation contained in paragraph 37

 7   of the complaint.
 8   COMPLAINT ¶ 38:
 9          The actions of Steven A. Ehresman alleged herein were severe, pervasive, created
10
     an abusive and hostile work environment, and constituted sexual harassment in violation
     of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. for which Defendant McDonald’s is responsible.
11   ANSWER:
12
              Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the complaint.
13
     COMPLAINT ¶ 39:
14
            Defendant McDonald’s actually knew and/or should have known of the illegal,
15   inappropriate and/or offensive conduct of Steven A. Ehresman failed to warn Plaintiffs,
     and others similarly situated, failed to take any steps to prevent that conduct and, in fact,
16   knowingly allowed that conduct to continue in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
17   ANSWER:

18            Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
19
     contained in paragraph 39 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.
20
     COMPLAINT ¶ 40:
21
            In failing to warn Plaintiffs and failing to take appropriate steps to prevent the
22   conduct of Steven A. Ehresman, and in knowingly allowing that conduct to continue,
     Defendant McDonald’s was negligent, and grossly so, and this negligence is a violation
23   of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.
24   ANSWER:

25            Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
26
     contained in paragraph 40 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.
27
28
                                                - 13 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 41:

 2           Defendant McDonald’s failed to investigate reports of Steven A. Ehresman’s
     illegal, inappropriate and offensive conduct toward Plaintiffs, failed to disseminate and
 3   enforce an appropriate anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure and, in fact,
     ignored the complaints of Plaintiffs and others, and failed to take appropriate action
 4   against Steven A. Ehresman after receiving reports of his illegal, inappropriate and
     offensive conduct toward Plaintiffs and this is a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.
 5
     ANSWER:
 6
               Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
 7

 8   contained in paragraph 41 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.

 9   COMPLAINT ¶ 42:

10          The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional
     and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
11   Jessica Tubandt, Amanda Henry, Tiara Brazle and Tamara Grubbs and support an award
     of punitive damages.
12
     ANSWER:
13
               Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
14
15   contained in paragraph 42 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.

16   COMPLAINT ¶ 43:

17          As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs have
     suffered injuries to their persons, causing physical and mental pain and suffering, mental
18   anguish, diminished quality of life, and a loss of past and future earnings and income.
     Because of the wrongful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff Tiara Brazle was forced to resign her
19   employment and was constructively discharged.
20   ANSWER:

21             Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
22
     contained in paragraph 43 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.
23
                                               COUNT 2
24
     COMPLAINT ¶ 44:
25
               Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
26   herein.
27
28
                                                 - 14 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   ANSWER:

 2             Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
 3
     paragraphs 1 through 43 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.
 4
     COMPLAINT ¶ 45:
 5
            Defendant McDonald’s knew or reasonable should have known of Defendant
 6   Steven A. Ehresman’s dangerous and exploitive propensities and/or that Defendant
     Steven A. Ehresman was an unfit agent and, despite such knowledge, Defendant
 7   McDonald’s negligently employed, retained, failed to properly supervise and/or failed to
     monitor Defendant Steven A. Ehresman and failed to provide adequate warning to
 8   Plaintiffs or their families and, therefore, allowed Defendant Steven A. Ehresman to
     commit the wrongful acts against Plaintiffs and others alleged above.
 9
     ANSWER:
10
               Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
11

12   contained in paragraph 45 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.

13                                             COUNT 3

14   COMPLAINT ¶ 46:

15             Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
     herein.
16
     ANSWER:
17
               Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
18

19   paragraphs 1 through 45 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.

20   COMPLAINT ¶ 47:

21          The action and inaction of Defendant McDonald’s and Defendant McDonald’s
     agents, knowing of the dangerous propensities and unfitness of Defendant Steven A.
22   Ehresman, was both extreme and outrageous.
23   ANSWER:

24             Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 47 of the
25
     complaint.
26
     COMPLAINT ¶ 48:
27
           Defendant McDonald’s acted in reckless disregard of the near certainty that
28   physical injury and emotional distress would result to Plaintiffs and others by ignoring
                                                 - 15 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   the clear risk of harm to Plaintiffs and others, ignoring the complaints of Plaintiffs and
     others and thereby allowed Defendant Steven A. Ehresman to continue his illegal,
 2   inappropriate and offensive conduct toward Plaintiffs and others thereby intentionally
     inflicting emotional distress upon Plaintiffs.
 3
     ANSWER:
 4
               Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
 5

 6   contained in paragraph 48 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.

 7                                             COUNT 4

 8   COMPLAINT ¶ 49:

 9             Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
     herein.
10
     ANSWER:
11
               Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
12
13   paragraphs 1 through 48 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.

14   COMPLAINT ¶ 50:

15          In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Steven A.
     Ehresman committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as against all
16   Plaintiffs.
17   ANSWER:

18             Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
19
     contained in paragraph 50 of the complaint and on the that basis, deny them.
20
                                               COUNT 5
21
     COMPLAINT ¶ 51:
22
               Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
23   herein.
24   ANSWER:

25             Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
26
     paragraphs 1 through 50 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.
27
28
                                                 - 16 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 52:

 2        McDonald’s is vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant Steven A. Ehresman in
     committing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as against all Plaintiffs.
 3
     ANSWER:
 4
               Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
 5

 6   contained in paragraph 52 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.

 7                                             COUNT 6

 8   COMPLAINT ¶ 53:

 9             Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
     herein.
10
     ANSWER:
11
               Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
12
13   paragraphs 1 through 52 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.

14   COMPLAINT ¶ 54:

15         In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Steven A.
     Ehresman committed the tort of assault as against all Plaintiffs.
16
     ANSWER:
17
               Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
18

19   contained in paragraph 54 of the complaint and on the that basis, deny them.

20                                             COUNT 7

21   COMPLAINT ¶ 55:

22             Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
     herein.
23
     ANSWER:
24
               Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
25

26   paragraphs 1 through 54 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.

27
28
                                                 - 17 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 56:

 2         Defendant McDonald’s is vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant Steven A.
     Ehresman in committing the tort of assault as against all Plaintiffs.
 3
     ANSWER:
 4
               Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
 5

 6   contained in paragraph 56 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.

 7                                             COUNT 8

 8   COMPLAINT ¶ 57:

 9             Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
     herein.
10
     ANSWER:
11
               Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
12
13   paragraphs 1 through 56 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.

14   COMPLAINT ¶ 58:

15         In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Steven A.
     Ehresman committed the tort of battery as against all Plaintiffs.
16
     ANSWER:
17
               Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
18

19   contained in paragraph 58 of the complaint and on the that basis, deny them.

20                                             COUNT 9

21   COMPLAINT ¶ 59:

22             Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
     herein.
23
     ANSWER:
24
               Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
25

26   paragraphs 1 through 58 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.

27
28
                                                 - 18 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 60:

 2         Defendant McDonald’s is vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant Steven A.
     Ehresman in committing the tort of battery as against all Plaintiffs.
 3
     ANSWER:
 4
               Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
 5

 6   contained in paragraph 60 of the complaint and on that basis, deny them.

 7                                            COUNT 10

 8   COMPLAINT ¶ 61:

 9             Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
     herein.
10
     ANSWER:
11
               Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
12
13   paragraphs 1 through 60 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.

14   COMPLAINT ¶ 62:

15           In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Steven A.
     Ehresman tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’ contractual employment rights as against
16   all Plaintiffs.
17   ANSWER:

18             Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
19
     contained in paragraph 62 of the complaint and on the that basis, deny them.
20
                                              COUNT 11
21
     COMPLAINT ¶ 63:
22
               Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
23   herein.
24   ANSWER:

25             Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
26
     paragraphs 1 through 62 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.
27
28
                                                 - 19 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1   COMPLAINT ¶ 64:

 2           In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Cindy Keppel is
     liable for tortiously interfering with Plaintiffs’ contractual employment rights as against
 3   all Plaintiffs.
 4   ANSWER:

 5             Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 64 of the
 6
     complaint.
 7
                                                COUNT 12
 8
     COMPLAINT ¶ 65:
 9
               Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth
10   herein.
11   ANSWER:

12             Defendants restate and incorporate by reference each and every answer to
13
     paragraphs 1 through 64 of the complaint as though fully set forth herein.
14
     COMPLAINT ¶ 66:
15
            In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Cindy Keppel
16   tortiously aided and abetted and/or acted in concert with Defendant Steven A. Ehresman
     with respect to his wrongful conduct and is responsible therefor as against all Plaintiffs.
17
     ANSWER:
18
               Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 66 of the
19

20   complaint.

21                                    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
22             NOW COMES Defendants, Cindy Keppel and Herb Keppel, and pursuant to
23
     Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, state as follows for their affirmative
24
     defenses:
25

26             1.     As their first affirmative defense, Defendants assert plaintiffs’ allegations

27   fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
28
                                                    - 20 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1            2.      As their second affirmative defense, Defendants assert that evidence in
 2
     support of plaintiffs’ claims in this action is barred in whole or part by the doctrine of
 3
     laches and related equitable principles.
 4

 5            3.      As their third affirmative defense, Defendants assert that plaintiffs have not

 6   alleged or suffered a tangible job detriment or otherwise suffered compensable damages.
 7
              4.      As their fourth affirmative defense, and without prejudice to their denials
 8
     and other statements of their pleadings, Defendants allege that plaintiffs did not mitigate
 9
10   their damages and failed to seek gainful employment at a comparable wage in a timely

11   manner or with diligence following the cessation of their employment with McDonald’s,
12
     and their damages, if any are awarded, should be reduced to the extent they failed to
13
     mitigate them, and/or to the extent they were precluded from working or seeking
14
15   employment for any reason.

16            5.      As their fifth affirmative defense, Defendants assert, based upon
17
     information and belief, that the claim for punitive damages is barred because imposition
18
     of such damages based on these facts would violate Defendants’ constitutional rights
19

20   pursuant to Article I § 10, Article IV § 2, and the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight

21   Amendments to the Constitution.
22
              6.      As their sixth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims
23
     are barred because they are preempted by the Arizona Workers' Compensation Act in that
24
25   they arose out of the course and scope of the plaintiffs’ employment with GLC

26   Restaurants, Inc.
27
28
                                                   - 21 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1            7.      As their seventh affirmative defense, and without prejudice to their denials
 2
     and other statements in their pleadings, Defendants allege that Defendants cannot be held
 3
     vicariously liable for the intentional torts Plaintiffs allege because these alleged tortuous
 4

 5   acts did not occur within the course and scope of the alleged harasser's employment and

 6   did not further Defendant GLC’ business interests.
 7
              WHEREFORE, Defendants deny that plaintiffs are entitled to any relief and
 8
     respectfully request that the Court dismiss the complaint in its entirety with prejudice and
 9
10   enter judgment for Defendants on all claims, and award Defendants their costs, attorneys’

11   fees, and such further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
12
13                                                Respectfully submitted,
14                                                CINDY KEPPEL and HERB KEPPEL
15

16                                                By s/ Yvette A. Heintzelman
                                                         One of their Attorneys
17
     Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
18   Yvette A. Heintzelman (admitted pro hac vice)
     Seyfarth Shaw LLP
19   55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200
     Chicago, Illinois 60603
20   Telephone: (312) 346-8000
     Facsimile: (312) 269-8869
21   E-mail: yheintzelman@seyfarth.com
22

23

24
25

26

27
28
                                                   - 22 -
     CH1 11003337.2
 1                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 2
              I, Yvette A. Heintzelman, an attorney, do hereby certify that on this 9th day of
 3

 4   January, 2006, I electronically submitted the foregoing DEFENDANTS CINDY

 5   KEPPEL AND HERB KEPPEL’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT OF
 6
     PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for
 7
     filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF
 8

 9   registrants:

10                                   Milton W. Hathaway, Jr.
                                     Murphy, Lutey Schmitt & Fuchs, P.L.L.C.
11                                   P.O. Box 591
                                     Prescott, Arizona 86302
12                                   Attorney for the Plaintiffs-Intervenors
13                                   Mary Jo O’Neill
                                     C. Emmanuel Smith
14                                   Sally C. Shanley
                                     Karen E. Nutter
15                                   Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                     Phoenix District Office
16                                   3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690
                                     Phoenix, Arizona 85012
17                                   Attorneys for the Plaintiff
18                                   James L. Blair
                                     N. Todd McKay
19                                   Renaud, Cook, Drury, Mesaros P.A.
                                     Phelps Dodge Tower
20                                   One N. Central Ave., Suite 900
                                     Phoenix, AZ 85004
21                                   Attorney for Defendant Steve Ehresman
22

23

24
25

26

27
28                                              - 23   -

     CH1 11003337.2
 1

 2
              I further certify that on this 9th day of January, 2006, I mailed via first-class mail a
 3

 4   copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS CINDY KEPPEL AND HERB KEPPEL’S

 5   AMENDED           ANSWER        TO     AMENDED          COMPLAINT         OF     PLAINTIFFS-
 6
     INTERVENORS to be submitted to:
 7
                                       Honorable David G. Campbell
 8                                     U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
                                       Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 623
 9                                     401 West Washington Street, SPC 58
                                       Phoenix, AZ 85003-2156
10
11
                                                  s/ Yvette A. Heintzelman
12                                                Attorney for Defendants
13

14
15

16
17
18

19

20
21

22

23

24
25

26

27
28
                                                   - 24 -
     CH1 11003337.2

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:9
posted:12/2/2011
language:Latin
pages:24