concord community schools lawsuit

7/23/2019 Concord Community Schools lawsuit

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/concord-community-schools-lawsuit 1/25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ROBYN CHIDDISTER, )

)Plaintiff, ))

v. ) No. 3:15-cv-00301)

CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL )CORPORATION, WAYNE STUBBS )and TIM TAHARA in their individual )capacities, )

)Defendants. )

)

DEFENDANTS, CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION,

WAYNE STUBBS AND TIM TAHARA’S

ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

FOR DAMAGES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND JURY DEMAND

Defendants, Concord Community School Corporation and Wayne Stubbs and Tim

Tahara in their individual capacities, by counsel, answer Plaintiffs’ Com plaint as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This action concerns unequal pay due to gender, failure to promote and hire on the basisof gender, and retaliation brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended bythe Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., and the First and Fourteenth Amendmentsto the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, by a former Secretary to theDirector of Transportation and Director of Building Facilities against Defendants.

ANSWER: Objection. No allegations are set forth against these defendants in paragraph one (1) of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Therefore, no answer isnecessary.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph two (2) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00301-JTM-CAN document 4 filed 07/29/15 page 1 of 25



2

3. Venue is proper under 29 U.S.C. § 139(b)(2) because a substantial part of the conductgiving rise to the claims took part in this judicial district.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that venue is proper in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division; the

defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph three (3) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff ROBYN CHIDDISTER is a citizen of the United States. She worked as theSecretary to the Director of Transportation and Director of Building Facilities for DefendantConcord Community School Corporation until her termination on or about August 15, 2011.Throughout her employment, Ms. Chiddister was an “employee” within the meaning of TitleVII.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that Robyn Chiddister was employed at the ConcordCommunity School Corporation (hereinafter “CCSC”) , that she was anemployee within the meaning of Title VII, and that she was employed briefly as a secretary in the CCSC Department of Transportation,including as secretary to the Director of the Department of Transportation.The defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph four (4) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

5. Defendant CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, also known asConcord Community Schools (“Concord” or the “District”), is a public school district servingElkhart, Indiana. Throughout the relevant time, the District was an “employer” within themeaning of Title VII.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that CCSC is a public school corporation. Thedefendants note that the correct defendant is the School Board of Trusteesfor the Concord Community School Corporation. The defendants denythe remaining allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph five (5) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

6. At all relevant times, Defendant WAYNE STUBBS was the District’s Superintendentand chief executive officer of the District. Mr. Stubbs is sued in his individual capacity.

ANSWER: The defendants admit Mr. Stubbs was the superintendent of CCSC. Thedefendants deny the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph six (6) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

7. At all relevant times Defendant TIM TAHARA was the District’s AssistantSuperintendent. Mr. Tahara is sued in his individual capacity.




3

ANSWER: The defendants admit Mr. Tahara was the assistant superintendent ofCCSC. The defendants deny the remaining allegations contained inrhetorical paragraph seven (7) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

FACTS

8. Ms. Chiddister began working for the District in or about September 2009 as a paraprofessional in the English as a Second Language (“ESL”) Department at Ox BowElementary School, one of the District’s schools.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that CCSC hired Chiddister as a part-time classroom paraprofessional in September 2009. The defendants deny the remainingallegations contained in rhetorical paragraph eight (8) of Plaintiffs’Complaint.

9. In or about May 2010, Ms. Chiddister began training for the position of Secretary to the

Director of Transportation and Director of Building Facilities (the “Secretary position”).

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph nine (9) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

10. In or about August 2010, she began working fulltime in the Secretary position and was paid $12.80 per hour.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth orfalsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph ten (10) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at this time.

11. Since in or about May 2010, Ms. Chiddister also worked on preparing to be the District’snext Director of Transportation after her boss retired, and familiarized herself with virtuallyevery aspect of the job.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eleven (11) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

12. Ms. Chiddister met or exceeded the District’s legitimate performance expectations at alltimes.

ANSWER: Objection. Rhetorical paragraph twelve (12) of Plaintiffs’ Complaintimproperly assumes that Chiddister was terminated. Without waiving saidobjection, the defendants deny the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twelve (12) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

The District Fails to Hire Ms. Chiddister for the Director Position Due to her Gender




4

13. In or about February 2011, the Director of Transportation announced his retirementeffective at the end of the 2010-2011 school year.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirteen (13) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

14. On or about February 21, 2011, Ms. Chiddister applied for the Director of Transportation position.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fourteen (14) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint. The defendants admit that Chiddister applied forthe position of Director of Safety and Transportation, but are withoutknowledge as to the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph fourteen (14) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

15. On or about April 13, 2011, Ms. Chiddister was interviewed by an eleven-member team

composed of ten men and one woman.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth orfalsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph fifteen (15) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at this time.

16. The interview team also interviewed two other women and one man, Rich Matteson.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph sixteen (16) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

17. During Ms. Chiddister’s interview, the interviewers made several comments such as people might have a hard time taking her seriously because she was “too nice” and “just asecretary.”

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventeen (17) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

18. In response, Ms. Chiddister told the interview team that she was overqualified for herSecretary position (she had been the Treasurer and Office Manager for her family’s business forfifteen years before working for Respondent) and that she had taken the Secretary position to“get her foot in the door.”

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eighteen (18) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

19. Other than the team’s gender -based comments, Ms. Chiddister’s interview for theDirector position went very well.




5

ANSWER: Objection. Rhetorical paragraph nineteen (19) of Plaintiffs’ Complaintimproperly assumes that “gender - based” comments were made during the interview. In addition,the use of “very well” is non-factual and impossible to respond to. Without waiving saidobjections, the defendants admit that Chiddister was asked to return for a second interview.

20. After the interviews the interview team voted that she was the most qualified candidatefor the Director of Transportation position and stated that her name would be forwarded to theSuperintendent.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty (20) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

21. On or about April 16, 2011, Assistant Superintendent Tim Tahara (male) informed Ms.Chiddister that she would have to participate in a second interview, and that she was one of thetwo candidates remaining under consideration.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that Chiddister was asked to give a secondinterview. The defendants are without information as to the remainingallegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twenty-one (21) of Plaintiffs’Complaint.

22. On or about April 26, 2011, Ms. Chiddister interviewed with Mr. Tahara, SuperintendentWayne Stubbs (male), Director of Technology Dick Pyle (male), and Assistant SuperintendentKevin Caird (male).

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth orfalsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-two (22)of Plaintiffs’ Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at thistime.

23. During the second interview, when asked what she would like to accomplish during herfirst ninety days as Director Ms. Chiddister set forth her ninety-day action plan.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth orfalsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-three (23)of Plaintiffs’ Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at thistime.

24. During the second interview, the interviewers repeated the gender-based question ofwhether people would take a “nice secretary” seriously as Director. They also asked whether shewould quit or stay on to help the new Director if she did not get the position.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-four (24) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.




6

25. Ms. Chiddister was taken aback by these questions and simply responded that she had been effectively performing most of the Director’s duties during the past several months inaddition to her regular secretarial duties, and was willing to help where needed.

ANSWER: Objection. Rhetorical paragraph twenty-five (25) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint

improperly assumes the truth of the allegations contained therein. It alsorequires the defendants to speculate as to Chiddister’s state of mind.Without waiving said objections, no allegations are set forth against thesedefendants; therefore, no answer is necessary.

26. On or about April 29, 2011, Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara informed Ms. Chiddister thatalthough she was more than qualified for the position and they knew she would do a wonderful job as Director, “we’re going to go in another direction.”

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-six (26) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

27. They further stated they hoped she would continue doing the good work she was doing because the new Director was going to need her help. They also told her that they knewtransportation had grown tremendously during the past couple of years and they hoped to be ableto better compensate her for all the work she did.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-seven (27)of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

28. On or about May 2, 2011, the District announced that Rich Matteson had been selected asthe new Director of Transportation. Mr. Matteson had no experience in school transportation.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that on May 2, 2011, CCSC selected Mr. Mattesonto become the Director of Safety and Transportation. The CCSC iswithout sufficient information to be able to admit or deny the remainingallegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twenty-eight (28) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

29. Since he had no transportation experience, Mr. Matteson was not qualified for theDirector position. In contrast, since Ms. Chiddister had already been performing virtually everyaspect of the Director job, she was qualified.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph twenty-nine (29) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

30. Ms. Chiddister later found out that after hiring Mr. Matteson, the District renamed theDirector position to “Director of Transportation and Safety” to make it appear as if he was, infact, qualified for the position.




7

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty (30) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

31. On or about May 3, 2011, Ms. Chiddister complained to Mr. Caird that the District hadengaged in gender discrimination in hiring the unqualified Mr. Matteson instead of her and the

other two women who were interviewed for the position.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-one (31) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

32. Mr. Matteson was so under-qualified that he had to ask Ms. Chiddister to teach him howto perform his job. In or about late-May 2011, he told her that he was “not good withcomputers” and asked her to help him with the bus routing software.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-two (32) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

33. Mr. Matteson also asked Ms. Chiddister to give him her ninety-day action plan which shehad discussed during her second interview. He further told her that he and Mr. Tahara “knewnothing about school transportation” and would be relying on her to teach them during thesummer before school started in the fall.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-three (33) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

The District Retaliates Against Ms. Chiddister for Complaining About Discrimination by

Firing Her

34. On or about June 2, 2011, Ms. Chiddister turned in her letter of resignation. A few dayslater, Mr. Tahara asked her to take back her resignation.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-four (34) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint. The defendants admit that on June 3, 2011,Chiddister resigned. The defendants deny the remaining allegationscontained in rhetorical paragraph thirty-four (34) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

35. Ms. Chiddister complained to Mr. Tahara that the District had hired an unqualified manfor the Director position and that she was being relied upon to train him.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-five (35) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

36. Ms. Chiddister also complained that she was overworked, underpaid, and notcompensated for all of the overtime hours she had to work, and reiterated that she could not workunder those conditions.




8

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-six (36) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

37. Mr. Tahara stated that he agreed that she was underpaid and overworked, and thatsomething had to be done about it. He further stated that nothing could be done about her

compensation until January 2012, but at that time hopefully she would be given a raise.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-seven (37) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

38. Ms. Chiddister informed Mr. Tahara that she would withdraw her resignation and thinkabout it.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-eight (38) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

39. The next day, Ms. Chiddister e-mailed Mr. Tahara and asked him if he would put hisassurances about her compensation in writing.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph thirty-nine (39) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

40. He called her the next night and told her that the District would not be able to put their plans for her in writing, and that if she had to resign, he hoped she would give them sufficientnotice to train Mr. Matteson and find her replacement. Ms. Chiddister responded that she wouldlet Mr. Tahara know before school started in the fall.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty (40) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

41. Ms. Chiddister worked through June 10, 2011, the last day of the school year for her position. Two weeks later, Mr. Matteson called her and asked if she would work everyWednesday that summer until she was called back fulltime on August 8, 2011. Since her familyneeded the income, she agreed.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-one (41) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

42. In July 2011, Mr. Matteson asked Ms. Chiddister if she would return early to fulltime onJuly 26, 2011 because he needed her help. Since her family needed the income, she agreed.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-two (42) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

43. In late July 2011, Ms. Chiddister learned that the Secretary position at Ox BowElementary School had been posted. She was pleased that the position would enable her to leave




9

the Transportation Department, so she applied for it. She further emailed the Principal of OxBow and told him she was very interested in returning to the school.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that a secretarial position at Ox Bow Elementarywas posted on July 19, 2011. The defendants are without sufficient

information as to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained inrhetorical paragraph forty-three (43) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

44. Soon after she applied for the position, Mr. Matteson told her he had just discussed withSuperintendent Stubbs the fact that they were planning on giving her a pay raise before theschool year started.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-four (44) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

45. Ms. Chiddister questioned how that would be possible given that Mr. Tahara had

informed her that all raises had to go through the Board of Education and that this could not bedone until January.

ANSWER: Objection. Rhetorical paragraph forty-five (45) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint isobjectionable because it improperly assumes the truth of the allegationscontained therein. Without waiving said objection, the defendants denythe allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph forty-five (45) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

46. Mr. Matteson responded that he knew Ms. Chiddister was underpaid given the amount ofwork she had to do, including running the routing program. He further requested that she keepthe pay raise a “secret between the two of us.”

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-six (46) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

47. A few days later, the Principal of Ox Bow called Ms. Chiddister to see if she wouldinterview on August 1, 2011.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-seven (47) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

48. Approximately an hour later, Mr. Tahara called Mr. Matteson on his speaker phone andasked if he was alone. Mr. Matteson then closed his office door.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-eight (48) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

49. A few minutes later, Mr. Matteson opened his door, looked at Ms. Chiddister sternly, andtold her he needed to see her in his office.




10

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph forty-nine (49) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

50. Mr. Matteson told her to close the door and asked if there was anything she wanted to tell

him.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty (50) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

51. He then told her that he knew she had applied for the Ox Bow position and wanted toknow why she did not tell him about it. He then showed her an e-mail from Mr. Tahara with alist of the interviewees for the position and said, “take a look, here’s your competition.”

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-one (51) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

52. Ms. Chiddister responded that she kept her job application to herself because she did notwant a confrontation about it and that she needed a job. She then asked whether this was whyMr. Tahara had just called him, and Mr. Matteson responded that it was.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-two (52) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

53. Ms. Chiddister then asked whether Mr. Tahara was going to call the Principal of Ox Bowand tell him not to hire her. Mr. Matteson responded that the Principal “doesn’t care who he pisses off, so I doubt Tim [Tahara] calling him will do anything, but it might help.”

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-three (53) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

54. Ms. Chiddister became upset and asked Mr. Matteson whether Mr. Tahara had also calledthe other applicants’ bosses to tell them to harass their employees too, or whether it was just her.Mr. Matteson laughed and said Mr. Tahara had probably just finished calling Ox Bow’sPrincipal.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-four (54) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

55. Ms. Chiddister then asked Mr. Matteson how he received the Director position withouthaving any transportation experience, since the first interview team had submitted her name forthe position. He started laughing and stated that his name had been submitted, and not hers.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-five (55) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.




11

56. Mr. Matteson further stated that he had received the Director position before the secondinterview, and that the District had just given Ms. Chiddister the second interview “to be nice.”

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-six (56) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

57. Ms. Chiddister then commented that he must have either gotten the Director position because he was a man or because he was friends with the administrators, or both. Mr. Mattesonresponded, “I’m not friends with them.”

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-seven (57) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

58. During the next several days, Ms. Chiddister continued to work into the night attemptingto get the routes ready for the school year with little or no assistance from Mr. Matteson, whowas frequently out of the office.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-eight (58) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

59. On or about August 12, 2011, Ms. Chiddister asked Mr. Matteson to skip a lunch out ofthe office to help out as the work was piling up and they were going to be hard-pressed to get theroutes done by the start of the school year.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph fifty-nine (59) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

60. Ms. Chiddister reiterated that too much was being expected of her with not enough timeto do it and that she had still not received an answer about overtime pay. Mr. Mattesonresponded, “oh well, if they [the routes] don’t get done, then they don’t get done. If they won’t pay you overtime, I can’t do anything to help you.”

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty (60) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

61. On or about August 13, 2011, Ms. Chiddister told Mr. Matteson that she did not think shecould continue working under those conditions. She further stated that she was tired of feelingused, harassed, and lied to about raises and overtime pay just to keep her working longer. Shealso specifically stated that she did not deserve to have her opportunity with Ox Bow interferedwith by Mr. Tahara.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-one (61) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.




12

62. Mr. Matteson responded with a comment to the effect of “I don’t blame you, I wouldn’tdo as much work as you do for $13 an hour.” He then stated he would talk to Mr. Tahara to seewhat could be done, and left the office.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-two (62) of

Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

63. About an hour later, Mr. Matteson sent Ms. Chiddister a text message stating, “I needyour letter of resignation by Monday.” That Monday morning, he sent her another text messagedemanding her resignation letter by noon.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-three (63) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

64. Ms. Chiddister then received a voicemail from Mr. Tahara asking her what she planned todo. She left him a voicemail to call her, but he never called back. Her employment ended that

day.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-four (64) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

65. The District fired Ms. Chiddister in retaliation for her complaining about genderdiscrimination with respect to the District’s hiring of Mr. Matteson over the more qualifiedfemale applicants.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-five (65) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

66. Even though she was qualified, Ms. Chiddister did not receive the Secretary position.

ANSWER: The Defendants admit in paragraph sixty-six (66) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint that Chiddister was not awarded the secretarial position at Ox BowElementary. The defendants deny that Chiddister was more qualified forthe position than the person who obtained the position.

67. The District failed to hire Ms. Chiddister for the Ox Bow Secretary position in retaliationfor her complaining about gender discrimination.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-seven (67) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

68. On or about August 18, 2011, Ms. Chiddister was contacted by a teacher at Ox BowSchool. The teacher told her that the Principal had authorized her to offer Ms. Chiddister a paraprofessional position in her classroom for the 2011-2012 school year.




13

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-eight (68) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

69. Ms. Chiddister responded that she doubted Mr. Tahara would allow her to take the position. The teacher stated the Principal would call Mr. Tahara the next day to make sure and

that she would call her back to let her know “everything was a go.”

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth orfalsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph sixty-nine (69)of Plaintiffs’ Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at thistime.

70. On or about August 21, 2011, the teacher called Ms. Chiddister back and said she hadsome bad news. She said she had spoken to the administration and had to withdraw the offer.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy (70) of


71. Even though she was qualified, Ms. Chiddister did not receive the Paraprofessional position.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that CCSC did not hire Chiddister for a paraprofessional position at Ox Bow. The defendants deny the remainingallegations, including the implicit allegations, contained in rhetorical paragraph seventy-one (71) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

72. The District failed to hire Ms. Chiddister for the Ox Bow Paraprofessional position inretaliation for her complaining about gender discrimination.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-two (72) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

The District Gives Ms. Chiddister Unequal Pay for Equal Work

73. During her time as Secretary, the District paid Ms. Chiddister $12.80 per hour.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth orfalsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-three(73) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same atthis time.

74. In addition to her secretarial duties, Ms. Chiddister performed virtually all of the duties ofthe Director of Transportation.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-four (74) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.




14

75. After her termination, the District immediately tasked five or more bus drivers withrouting the district and paid them $17-plus per hour and also rehired a former employee and arepresentative from the bus routing software company to assist. Ms. Chiddister previously performed those duties.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-five (75) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

76. Ms. Chiddister was more qualified than these employees, but the District paid her less forequal work, performed under equal conditions, because of her gender, female.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-six (76) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

The District Further Retaliates Against Ms. Chiddister After She Filed an EEOC Charge

77. On or about October 25, 2011, Ms. Chiddister filed a Charge of Discrimination againstthe District with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) aswell as the Indiana Civil Rights Commission.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-seven (77)of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

78. Ms. Chiddister’s Charge alleged that the District underpaid her and failed to pay herovertime because of her gender, failed to hire her/promote her to the Director of Transportation position due to her gender, and retaliated against her by terminating her employment and failingto hire her for the Ox Bow Secretary and Paraprofessional positions.

ANSWER: The defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph seventy-eight(78) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint that the charge included charges for genderdiscrimination and retaliation, but deny there were any allegations in thecharge concerning failure to pay overtime or underpaid her.

79. Subsequently, the EEOC engaged in an active investigation of Ms. Chiddister’s Charge.

ANSWER: Objection. No allegations are set forth against these defendants in paragraph seventy-nine (79) of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Therefore, noanswer is necessary.

80. On or about June 20, 2013, Ms. Chiddister reapplied for the Director of Transportationand School Safety position which had once again become vacant.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that Chiddister sent a letter expressing an interest inthe position. The defendants deny the remaining allegations contained inrhetorical paragraph eighty (80) of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.




15

81. The District declined to interview Ms. Chiddister even though she had been one of thetwo finalists for the position when she first applied for it in 2011.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-one (81) of


82. On or about July 15, 2013, the District instead hired the Secretary to the Director ofTransportation and Director of Building Facilities, the position Ms. Chiddister had held when shefirst applied for the Director position in 2011.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-two (82) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

83. In or about July 2013, Ms. Chiddister applied for her previous position, the vacantSecretary to the Director of Transportation and Director of Building Facilities position.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-three (83)of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

84. Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara instructed the new Director not to interview or hire Ms.Chiddister for the Secretary position she had held previously. Instead, another less-qualifiedapplicant was subsequently hired.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-four (84) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

85. Ms. Chiddister was well-qualified for both the Director and Secretary positions.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that Chiddister was qualified for the positions forwhich she applied, but deny that she was as well qualified as the personswho obtained the positions and further deny the remaining allegationscontained in rhetorical paragraph eighty-five (85) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

86. The District failed to hire her for both positions because she had complained internallyabout gender discrimination and filed a Charge of Discrimination against it with the EEOC.Accordingly, on or about August 23, 2013, Ms. Chiddister filed a second Charge of genderdiscrimination and retaliation with the EEOC.

ANSWER: The defendants admit that Chiddister filed a second charge of retaliation;the defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph eighty-six (86) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

87. As a result of the District’s actions, Ms. Chiddister has suffered and continues to suffer loss of income, other economic damages, emotional distress, and has been forced to expendattorneys’ fees and costs.




16

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-seven (87) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

COUNT I (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):

UNEQUAL PAY IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

88. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 0 as if fullyset forth herein.

ANSWER: Defendants reincorporate by reference its responses to paragraphs 1through 87 as above of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

89. Ms. Chiddister filed timely charges with the United States Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. The EEOC madea merits determination in her favor on her 2011 Charge finding that the evidence supported her

claims that the District failed to promote her to the Director position and failed to hire her at OxBow School in violation of Title VII. The EEOC also made a merits determination on her 2013Charge finding reasonable cause to believe that the District failed to hire her for the Director andSecretary positions in 2013 in violation of Title VII.

ANSWER: The defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph eighty-nine(89) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint that Chiddister filed multiple charges withthe EEOC and further that the EEOC found in Chiddister’s favor. Thedefendants deny that all of the allegations contained in her complaint weresubmitted for review by the appropriate administrative entity, and thedefendants deny that Chiddister exhausted the required administrative process before filing this complaint on all of her charges.

90. After exhausting her administrative remedies, including receiving a Notice of Right toSue from the U.S. Department of Justice, Ms. Chiddister timely filed this lawsuit. (Attachedhereto as Exhibit 1).

ANSWER: The defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety (90) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint that Chiddister received a Notice of Right to Suefrom the United States Department of Justice and that suit was timely filedon some of her charges. The defendants deny the remaining allegationsset forth in paragraph ninety (90) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

91. While serving in the Secretary position, Ms. Chiddister also performedvirtually all of the duties of the Director position, in addition to her regular duties. Nonetheless, the District only paid Ms. Chiddister $12.80 per hour and did not pay her overtime.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-one (91) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.




17

92. After Ms. Chiddister’s termination, the District used at least five bus drivers in additionto a former employee and a representative from the bus routing software company (the“replacement employees”) to perform her job.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-two (92) of


93. In contrast to Ms. Chiddister’s $12.80/hour rate of pay, the District paid the se bus drivers$17-plus per hour.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-three (93) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

94. Ms. Chiddister was more highly-qualified than the replacement employees to perform the job.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-four (94) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

95. The jobs performed by Ms. Chiddister and the replacement employees required equalskill and were performed under equal conditions.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth orfalsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-five (95)of Plaintiffs’ Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny the same at thistime.

96. Nonetheless, the District paid Ms. Chiddister substantially less than the replacementemployees because of her gender, female.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-six (96) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

97. The District’s conduct violated Title VII and was carried out in reckless disre gard of Ms.Chiddister’s federally-protected rights.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-seven (97) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

98. As a result of the District’s actions, Ms. Chiddister suffered, and continues to suffer, lossof income, emotional distress, and has been forced to expend attorneys’ fees and costs.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph ninety-eight (98) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

COUNT II (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):




18

FAILURE TO HIRE/PROMOTE IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

99. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 0 and 89through 90 as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER: Defendants reincorporate by reference its responses to paragraphs 1through 87 and 89 through 90 as above of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

100. Even though Ms. Chiddister was qualified for the Director position, the District awardedit to the sole male candidate who interviewed.

ANSWER: The defendants admit in paragraph one hundred (100) of Plaintiffs’Complaint that Richard Matteson is male and he received the position ofDirector of Safety and Transportation. The defendants deny the remainingallegations contained in rhetorical paragraph one hundred (100) ofPlaintiffs’ Complaint.

101. The male candidate who received the position was completely unqualified and indeed,the District required Ms. Chiddister to train the successful male candidate on how to perform his job.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred one(101) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

102. The District made negative gender- based comments during Ms. Chiddister’s interviews,further establishing that the reason the District failed to award the Director position to Ms.Chiddister was because of her gender, female.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred two(102) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

103. The District’s conduct violated Title VII and was carried out in reckless disregard of Ms.Chiddister’s federally-protected rights.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred three(103) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.


ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred four(104) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

COUNT III (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):




19

RETALIATION (TERMINATION) IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII



106. After the District failed to hire/promote Ms. Chiddister for the Director position, sheengaged in protected activity by complaining to her supervisor, Rich Matteson, and to Mr. Cairdthat she believed she and the other female applicants had not received the Director position because of their gender, female.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred six(106) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

107. In retaliation for her complaints, the District terminated Ms. Chiddister’s employment.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred seven(107) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.


ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred eight(108) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.


ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred nine(109) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

COUNT IV (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):

RETALIATION (FAILURE TO HIRE FOR OX BOW SECRETARY AND

PARAPROFESSIONAL POSITIONS) IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII



111. After the District failed to hire/promote Ms. Chiddister for the Director position, sheengaged in protected activity by complaining to her supervisor, Rich Matteson, and to Mr. Caird




20

that she believed she and the other female applicants had not received the Director position because of their gender, female.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred eleven(111) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

112. In retaliation for her complaints, the District failed to hire her for both the Ox BowSchool Secretary position and the Ox Bow School Paraprofessional position, even though shewas qualified for both positions.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred twelve(112) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.


ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundredthirteen (113) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.


ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundredfourteen (114) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

COUNT V (AGAINST THE DISTRICT):

RETALIATION (FAILURE TO HIRE FOR 2013 DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY

POSITIONS) IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII



116. In retaliation for Ms. Chiddister’s internal complaints of gender discrimination and filingher EEOC Charge of Discrimination, the District failed to hire her for both the 2013 Director position and the 2013 Secretary position, even though she was qualified for both positions.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundred sixteen(116) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.





21

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundredseventeen (117) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.


ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundredeighteen (118) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

COUNT VI (AGAINST STUBBS AND TAHARA):

SEX DISCRIMINATION/FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT/

EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION

(FAILURE TO HIRE FOR 2013 DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY POSITIONS)

119. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 87 as iffully set forth herein.


120. At all relevant times, Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara were acting under color of state law.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth orfalsity of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph one hundredtwenty (120) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint so as to neither admit nor deny thesame at this time.

121. Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara intentionally discriminated against Ms. Chiddister inconnection with her applications for the Director and Secretary positions in 2013 because she is awoman who had complained about gender discrimination, thereby violating her Equal Protectionrights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundredtwenty-one (121) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

122. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendants’ actions, Ms. Chiddister suffered, andcontinues to suffer, loss of income, emotional distress, and has been forced to expend attorneys’fees and costs.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundredtwenty-two (122) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

123. Ms. Chiddister may enforce her Equal Protection rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.




22

ANSWER: Objection. No allegations are set forth against these defendants in paragraph one hundred twenty-three (123) of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.Therefore, no answer is necessary.

COUNT VII (AGAINST STUBBS AND TAHARA):

RETALIATION (FAILURE TO HIRE FOR 2013 DIRECTOR AND SECRETARYPOSITIONS)/FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION

124. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 87 as iffully set forth herein.


125. Ms. Chiddister ’s internal complaints of gender discrimination and Charges filed with theEEOC addressed matters of public concern and therefore were constitutionally-protected speech.

ANSWER: Objection. Rhetorical paragraph one hundred twenty-five (125) of thePlaintiffs’ Complaint improperly assumes the truth of the matters assertedtherein. Without waiving said objection, the defendants deny theallegations contained in rhetorical paragraph one hundred twenty-five(125) of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

126. Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Tahara, acting under color of state law, intentionally retaliatedagainst Ms. Chiddister in connection with her applications for the Director and Secretary positions in 2013 because she had engaged in protected speech.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundredtwenty-six (126) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

127. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendants’ actions, Ms. Chiddister suffered, andcontinues to suffer, loss of income, emotional distress, and has been forced to expend attorneys’fees and costs.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph one hundredtwenty-seven (127) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

128. Ms. Chiddister may enforce her First Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

ANSWER: Objection. No allegations are set forth against these defendants in paragraph one hundred twenty-eight (128) of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.Therefore, no answer is necessary.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES




23

Defendants, Concord Community School Corporation and Wayne Stubbs and TimTahara, by counsel, in further answer to and for their affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s state asfollows:

1. The Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that she has failed to exhaust all of

the administrative prerequisites to filing suit on all of her claims.

2. The Plaintiff may not have timely filed suit with respect to all of her claims.Therefore, those claims are barred.

3. The Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that she has failed to attach a copyof the written documents upon which her claim is based to the Complaint.

4. The allegations in the Complaint fall outside the scope of the administrativecharges.

5. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted againstDefendant(s) and, as such, the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed.

6. The Complaint fails because the Defendants did not engage in the allegeddiscriminatory or retaliatory acts. All actions of Defendants were taken forlegitimate, nondiscriminatory or nonretaliatory reasons.

7. The Plaintiff was an at-will employee whose employment could have beenterminated at any time, for any reason, with or without notice.

8. The Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between her exercise of

statutory rights and any adverse employment action.

9. The Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie claim necessary to recover under thestatute.

10. Even if the Plaintiff could establish a prima facie claim, she cannot establish thatthe Defendants’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons for their actions were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.

11. The Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

12. The Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the doctrines of waiver, accord andsatisfaction, and laches.

13. The Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, were not proximately caused by any act oromission attributable to these Defendants under any theory of liability.

14. The Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate any damages she allegedly received.




24

15. These Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for all claims against them intheir individual capacities.

16. The Defendants are entitled to immunity from punitive damages in their officialcapacities.

17. These Defendants are otherwise immune from these claims.

18. These Defendants are immune both from liability and from suit, as their activitieswere discretionary, and did not violate any clearly established statutory orconstitutional right of the Plaintiff of which a reasonable person would haveknown.

19. There is no vicarious liability for a federal civil rights claim.

20. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which punitive damages may be

awarded.

21. Punitive damages are not recoverable against governmental entities.

22. The Defendants are entitled to all of the protections and immunities afforded byIndiana law pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United StatesConstitution.

23. To the extent that these answering Defendants have not responded to any of theallegations contained in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants specifically denythe same at this time.

24. These answering Defendants reserve the right to further plead defenses of whichthey become aware through discovery or otherwise.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, Concord Community School Corporation and WayneStubbs and Tim Tahara, by counsel, prays that the Plaintiff takes nothing by way of its complaintfor damages, for judgment in favor of these Defendants, and for all other just and proper relief inthe premises, including the costs of this action.

JURY DEMAND

Defendants, Concord Community School Corporation and Wayne Stubbs and TimTahara, by counsel, requests trial by jury on the issues herein.




HUNT SUEDHOFF KALAMAROS, LLP

By: /s/ Lyle R. HardmanLyle R. Hardman (#16056-49)Attorney for Concord Community School

Corporation and Wayne Stubbs and Tim Tahara intheir individual capacities205 W. Jefferson Blvd. Ste. 300Post Office Box 4156South Bend, IN 46634-4156Telephone: (574) 232-4801

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoingDefendants, Concord Community School Corporation, Wayne Stubbs and Tim Tahara’sAnswers to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages, Affirmative Defenses, and Jury Demand wasserved upon the following:

Michael Merrick150 N. Michigan Avenue, #800Chicago, IL 60601

via electronic mail using ECF/Pacer, this 29th day of July, 2015.

/s/ Lyle R. HardmanLyle R. Hardman (#16056-49


concord community schools lawsuit

Documents