Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 23, 2020

PLAZA DE JENNINGS 8: CHIPMAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAMEDA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 2/10/2021 3:03 PM Reviewed By: M Vu Case #20CV373934 Envelope: 5820077 CARMEN PLAZA DE JENNINGS (SBN 091742) JAYNE BENZ CHIPMAN (SBN 140048) PLAZA DE JENNINGS & CHIPMAN LLP 1000 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 110 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 3 19-7080 Attorneys for Defendant FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ERICK RAICH, an individual, Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 6103 Plaintiff, Case N0. 20CV373934 vs. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY DAMAGES COLLEGE DISTRICT, a California public entity and DOES 1-25, inclusive. Defendants. Complaint Filed: November 23, 2020 Defendant FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (hereinafter collectively “Defendant”) hereby answers PlaintiffERICK RAICH’S (“Plaintiff”) unverified Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 43 1 .30(d), Defendant generally denies each and every allegation 0f Plaintiff” s unverified Complaint and further denies that Plaintiff has suffered any injury by reason of any act 0r omission 0f Defendant. Defendant filrther submits the following Affirmative Defenses: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 20CV373934 4834-5060-2454 Vu PLAZA DE JENNINGS 8: CHIPMAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAMEDA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State Cause 0f Action) As an affirmative defense t0 each 0f Plaintiff” s claims, Defendant avers that Plaintiff fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State Cause 0f Action for Disability Discrimination) As an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination in Violation of Gov’t Code § 12940(a), Defendant avers that Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause 0f action against Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State Cause 0f Action for Failure t0 Engage in the Interactive Process) As an affirmative defense t0 Plaintiff s Second Cause 0f Action for Failure t0 Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of Gov’t Code § 12940(n), Defendant avers that Plaintiff fails t0 state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause 0f action against Defendant. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State Cause 0f Action for Failure t0 Accommodate) As an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’ s Third Cause of Action for Failure t0 Accommodate in Violation of Gov’t Code § 12940(m), Defendant avers that Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) As an affirmative defense t0 each 0f Plaintiffs claims, Defendant avers that Plaintiff failed t0 timely exhaust all applicable administrative remedies, including but not limited t0 administrative remedies under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12900, et seq. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 20CV373934 PLAZA DE JENNINGS 8: CHIPMAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAMEDA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute 0f Limitations) As an affirmative defense t0 each 0f Plaintiff s claims, Defendant avers that the claims, in Whole 0r in part, are barred by the applicable statute 0f limitations, including, but not limited t0, Government Code § 12960. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Compliance) As an affirmative defense t0 each 0f Plaintiff” s claims, Defendant avers that each claim stated therein, is barred, in whole 0r in part, because of Defendant’s compliance with relevant underlying law(s), regulations and/or Defendant District’s own policies and procedures. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Legitimate Exercise 0f Management Discretion) As an affirmative defense t0 each of Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant avers that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because all decisions related t0 Plaintiff” s employment were a just and proper exercise 0f management discretion 0n the part 0f Defendant, including Defendant District’s agents and employees, and were based 0n legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-harassing and non- retaliatory reasons Which Defendants believed in good faith under the circumstances existing at the time. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Undue Hardship) As an affirmative defense t0 each 0f Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant avers that any accommodations sought by Plaintiff for disability or medical condition would impose an undue hardship 0n Defendant in that such an accommodation would be unduly costly 0r burdensome 0r restructure the position such that essential job functions would have t0 be performed by others. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Exclusivity 0f Workers’ Compensation Remedy) As an affirmative defense t0 each 0f Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant avers that Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the California Workers’ Compensation Act, California 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 20CV373934 PLAZA DE JENNINGS 8: CHIPMAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAMEDA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Labor Code § 3600, er seq., Which provides the exclusive remedy for such claims involving personal injuries and emotional distress arising out of employment. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel, Unclean Hands, Laches) As an affirmative defense to each 0f Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant avers that Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of estoppel, unclean hands and/or laches. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) As an affirmative defense t0 each 0f Plaintiff” s claims, Defendant avers that Plaintiff” s claims are barred, in whole 0r in part, by the doctrine 0f waiver. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Attorneys’ Fees Claims) As an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s prayer for damages, Defendant avers that Plaintiff has failed t0 state facts sufficient t0 support a claim for attorneys’ fees. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mitigation) As an affirmative defense to each 0f Plaintiff” s claims, Defendant avers that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages, and, to the extent of such failure, any damages awarded t0 Plaintiff should be reduced accordingly. RIGHT TO AMEND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant has no independent knowledge, as of the filing of this Answer, of all facts allegedly constituting the causes 0f action in the Complaint, and based thereon, hereby respectfully requests leave 0f this Court t0 amend this Answer t0 include those affirmative defenses that are revealed during the course of Defendant’s discovery. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that: 1. The Complaint be dismissed in its entirety, With prejudice; 2. Plaintiff be granted nothing in this action; 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 20CV373934 PLAZA DE JENNINGS 8: CHIPMAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAMEDA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The Court issue judgment in favor 0f Defendant; and 4. Defendant be awarded its costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: February 10, 2021 PLAZA DE JENNINGS & CHIPMAN LLP By: /s/ Carmen Plaza de Jennings Carmen Plaza de Jennings Jayne Benz Chipman Attorneys for Defendant FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 20CV373934