1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PAUL GREEN Plaintiff, v. DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No: 3:12-cv-00664-L DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Dallas County Schools, Defendant in the above-styled and numbered cause files this Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint and Jury Demand (the "Complaint") and respectfully would show the Court as follows: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff purports to bring claims pursuant to the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., for disability discrimination and retaliation. Dallas County Schools denies that a claim for disability discrimination is actionable under Title VII. Dallas County Schools denies that it discriminated against Plaintiff based on any alleged disability. 2. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff purports to bring claims pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., for age discrimination. Dallas County Schools denies that it discriminated against Plaintiff based on his age. Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID 33
Transcript
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
PAUL GREEN
Plaintiff,
v.
DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No: 3:12-cv-00664-L
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Dallas County Schools, Defendant in the above-styled and numbered cause files this
Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint and Jury Demand (the "Complaint") and respectfully would
show the Court as follows:
I.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff purports to bring claims pursuant to
the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., for disability
discrimination and retaliation. Dallas County Schools denies that a claim for disability
discrimination is actionable under Title VII. Dallas County Schools denies that it discriminated
against Plaintiff based on any alleged disability.
2. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff purports to bring claims pursuant to
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., for age discrimination.
Dallas County Schools denies that it discriminated against Plaintiff based on his age.
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID 33
2
II.
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
3. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff's personnel file states his address is
2519 John West Road, Apt. 18209, Dallas, Texas 75228, which is located in Dallas County.
Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff's personnel file indicates his date of birth is
November 23, 1953, and that he is over forty (40) years of age. Dallas County Schools is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
4. Dallas County Schools admits that it is a county school district, which provides
services to independent school districts throughout the state of Texas. Dallas County Schools
admits that it is located in Dallas County, Texas at 612 North Zang Boulevard, Dallas, Texas
75208. Plaintiff's assertions that Dallas County Schools is an employer within the meaning of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act are conclusions of law
that require no response. Dallas County Schools admits that Ashley Wilson, Dallas County
Schools' General Counsel, was served with process.
5. Dallas County Schools admits that venue is proper in the United State District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
III.
PROCEDURAL PREREQUISITES
6. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination that
was received by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 28, 2011.
7. Dallas County Schools admits that more than sixty days have elapsed since
November 28, 2011.
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID 34
3
8. Dallas County Schools is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's
Complaint. Dallas County Schools admits that a copy of Plaintiff's Dismissal and Notice of
Rights letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is attached to Plaintiff's
Complaint as Exhibit A and states that the Dismissal and Notice of Rights letter speaks for itself.
IV.
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS
9. Plaintiff's assertions that he is a qualified individual with disability within the
meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Family Medical Leave Act are
conclusions of law that require no response.
10. Dallas County Schools admits the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
11. Dallas County Schools is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's
Complaint.
12. Dallas County Schools is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's
Complaint. Dallas County Schools admits that a copy of what purports to be a letter from Brady
L. Allen, M.D. is attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit B and states that the purported
letter speaks for itself.
13. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff was on a bus route on Tuesday,
August 30, 2011, with Dallas County Schools' bus driver Carlos Bárcena. Dallas County
Schools denies that Carlos Bárcena was Plaintiff's supervisor. Dallas County Schools denies that
Carlos Bárcena refused to stop the bus to allow Plaintiff to use the restroom. Dallas County
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID 35
4
Schools is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
14. Dallas County Schools denies that Carlos Bárcena refused to stop and allow
Plaintiff to use the restroom. Dallas County Schools also denies that Plaintiff requested that the
bus be stopped so he could clean himself. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff urinated
on himself and in a plastic water bottle while on the bus. Dallas County Schools is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
15. Dallas County Schools admits that after Plaintiff urinated on himself and in a
plastic water bottle, Carlos Bárcena made a bus stop to pick up one child who was wheelchair
bound. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff assisted with securing the wheelchair in the
bus. Dallas County Schools admits that Carlos Bárcena and Plaintiff eventually returned to the
Lawnview Service Center when their shift ended. Dallas County Schools is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations
contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
16. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff was transferred to a new route on
Wednesday, August 31, 2011. Dallas County Schools admits it investigated the incident after it
was reported by Carlos Bárcena, which included discussing the incident with Plaintiff. Dallas
County Schools denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's
Complaint.
17. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff requested two personal leave days
because he was "having surgery" for September 1, 2011 and September 2, 2011, and did not
report to work on those days in accordance with his request. Dallas County Schools admits that
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID 36
5
it was closed for Labor Day on September 5, 2011, and that none of its employees reported to
work that day as it was a holiday. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff returned to work
on September 6, 2011. Dallas County Schools denies that plaintiff was off work for six days.
Dallas County Schools admits Plaintiff provided documentation from Baylor Health Care
System indicating he could not lift more than ten pounds until released by his doctor. Dallas
County Schools is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Complaint. Dallas
County Schools admits that a copy of what purports to be information from Baylor University
Medical Center is attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit C and states that the information
from Baylor University Medical Center speaks for itself.
18. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff received notice of his termination
from Dennis Johnson on September 16, 2011. Dallas County Schools denies that Plaintiff
received the notice within a week from returning from surgery. Dallas County Schools admits
that a copy of Plaintiff's termination notice from Dallas County Schools is attached to Plaintiff's
Complaint as Exhibit D and states that the termination notice speaks for itself. Plaintiff admits
that Carlos Bárcena was suspended for one day without pay. Dallas County Schools is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
19. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff filed a grievance with Dallas County
Schools against Dennis Johnson arising out of Plaintiff's termination. Dallas County Schools
admits that Aaron Hobbs, the Director of Transportation for Dallas County Schools, upheld
Plaintiff's termination on October 13, 2011. Dallas County Schools admits that a copy of the
October 13, 2011 letter upholding Plaintiff's termination is attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID 37
6
Exhibit E and states that the letter speaks for itself. Dallas County Schools denies that Plaintiff
was "forced to stay on the bus, essentially being held hostage by Carlos [Bárcena]."
20. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff appealed Aaron Hobbs' decision to
uphold Plaintiff's termination to Superintendent Rick D. Sorrells, Ed. D. Dallas County Schools
admits that Dr. Sorrells upheld Plaintiff's termination. Dallas County Schools admits that a copy
of the November 3, 2011 letter from Dr. Sorrells upholding Plaintiff's termination is attached to
Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit F and states that the letter speaks for itself.
21. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff appealed his termination to the Dallas
County Schools Board of Trustees. Dallas County Schools admits that the Board of Trustees met
to conduct a Board hearing on Wednesday, December 7, 2011, regarding Plaintiff's termination.
Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff's termination was upheld by the Board of Trustees.
Dallas County Schools admits that a copy of the December 7, 2011 letter from Board President
Larry Duncan upholding Plaintiff's termination is attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit G
and states that the letter speaks for itself.
22. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff filed an unemployment claim with the
Texas Workforce Commission. Dallas County Schools admits that the claim originally was
denied by the Texas Workforce Commission because Plaintiff was terminated for job related
misconduct. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff appealed the decision and that the
Texas Workforce Commission issued an Appeal Tribunal Decision on November 18, 2011,
reversing the initial decision. Dallas County Schools admits that a copy of the Appeal Tribunal
Decision is attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit H and states that the letter speaks for
itself. Dallas County Schools denies the accuracy of the Appeal Tribunal Decision. Dallas
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID 38
7
County Schools denies the factual allegations contained in the Appeal Tribunal Decision,
portions of which are restated in paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
23. Dallas County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
24. Dallas County Schools admits that Carlos Bárcena remains employed by Dallas
County Schools. Dallas County Schools denies that Carlos Bárcena was Plaintiff's supervisor.
Dallas County Schools denies that Carlos Bárcena engaged in any misconduct, unprofessional
behavior, or harassment. Dallas County Schools admits that it terminated Plaintiff. Plaintiff's
assertion that Plaintiff suffers from a disability is a conclusion of law that requires no response.
25. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff was fifty-seven (57) years of age
when he was terminated. Dallas County Schools is without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff's
Complaint.
26. Dallas County Schools admits that the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights letter on December 6, 2011. Dallas County
Schools admits that a copy of Plaintiff's Dismissal and Notice of Rights letter from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission is attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit A and
states that the Dismissal and Notice of Rights letter speaks for itself.
COUNT I—DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
27. Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff's Complaint requires no response by Dallas County
Schools.
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID 39
8
28. Dallas County Schools is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Plaintiff's
Complaint.
29. Plaintiff's assertions that Plaintiff's major life activity has been limited and that he
is not able to control the operation of a major bodily function are conclusions of law that require
no response. Dallas County Schools denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 29
of Plaintiff's Complaint.
30. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff urinated on himself and in a plastic
water bottle while on the bus on August 30, 2011. Dallas County Schools admits that Carlos
Bárcena was the bus driver. Dallas County Schools denies the remaining allegations contained
in paragraph 30 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
31. Plaintiff's assertion that Plaintiff's request for an accommodation would not have
imposed an undue hardship on the operation of Dallas County School's business is a conclusion
of law that requires no response. Dallas County Schools admits that all humans eliminate waste
from their body. Dallas County Schools denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph
31 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
32. Dallas County Schools denies that it had any knowledge of Plaintiff's alleged
medical condition(s) requiring the alleged use of diuretics prior to September 27, 2011. Dallas
County Schools states Plaintiff was terminated for work related misconduct. As such, Dallas
County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
33. Dallas County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID 40
9
34. Dallas County Schools is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of Plaintiff's
Complaint.
35. Dallas County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
COUNT II—AGE DISCRIMINATION
36. Paragraph 36 of Plaintiff's Complaint requires no response by Dallas County
Schools.
37. Dallas County Schools is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of Plaintiff's
Complaint.
38. Dallas County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
COUNT III-MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
39. Paragraph 39 of Plaintiff's Complaint requires no response by Dallas County
Schools.
40. Dallas County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
41. Dallas County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
COUNT IV—RETALIATION
42. Paragraph 42 of Plaintiff's Complaint requires no response by Dallas County
Schools.
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID 41
10
43. Dallas County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
44. Dallas County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of
Plaintiff's Complaint. Dallas County Schools denies that Exhibit C references Plaintiff's
termination.
45. Dallas County Schools admits that Plaintiff appealed his termination, which was
upheld by the Board of Trustees.
46. Dallas County Schools denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
47. Dallas County Schools denies any allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint not
specifically admitted or denied herein.
AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
48. Dallas County Schools asserts that Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages.
49. Dallas County Schools asserts that Plaintiff’s damages, if any, are subject to any
applicable damages caps.
50. Dallas County Schools asserts that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages as a
matter of law.
51. Dallas County Schools asserts that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if
any.
52. Dallas County Schools asserts that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies.
53. Dallas County Schools asserts that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID 42
11
54. Dallas County Schools asserts that it did not discriminate against Plaintiff on the
basis of any disability.
55. Dallas County Schools asserts that it did not discriminate against Plaintiff on the
basis of his age.
56. Dallas County Schools would show that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie
case of age discrimination.
57. Dallas County Schools would show that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie
case of disability discrimination.
58. Dallas County Schools would show that the decisions made in regard to Plaintiff’s
employment were legitimate, nondiscriminatory business decisions.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
59. Dallas County Schools denies that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees.
60. Dallas County Schools asserts its right to attorney's fees pursuant to 42 USCS §
12205.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Dallas County Schools prays that all relief
requested by Plaintiff be denied; that judgment be entered in its favor and that Plaintiff take
nothing by his claim; that Dallas County Schools recover its court costs and attorney’s fees; and
for such other and further relief to which Dallas County Schools may show itself justly entitled.
Case 3:12-cv-00664-L Document 5 Filed 04/17/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID 43
