Answer To First Amended Complaint

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 57
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Carl Peter Erlinder, Plaintiff, v. Eric Janus, William Mitchell College of Law, Kathleen Flynn-Peterson, Phebe Haugen, Mary Gale, Niels Schaumann, and Simon Canick, Defendants. Court File No. ____________ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants Eric Janus, William Mitchell College of Law, Phebe Haugen, Mary Gale, and Simon Canick 1 deny each and every allegation in Plaintiff Carl Peter Erlinder's First Amended Complaint ("Complaint"), except as specifically admitted in this Answer to the First Amended Complaint ("Answer"), and further deny any and all liability to Plaintiff. The claims asserted in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint are without legal or factual merit. AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS William Mitchell College of Law (William Mitchell) has, for 114 years, been engaged in the education and training of students for the practice of law. Plaintiff Peter Erlinder has been a professor at William Mitchell for more than 30 years. William Mitchell encourages its faculty to engage in teaching, writing, and public service, and
1
Niels Schaumann and Kathleen Flynn Peterson have not been served with either the original Complaint or the First Amended Complaint, and therefore are not parties to this action.
5946895v6
gives full respect to the principle of academic freedom. Plaintiffs writing and public service have been persistently controversial, but William Mitchell, true to its principles of academic freedom and the pursuit of justice, has accommodated Plaintiffs scholarship and public service work without interference. In late December 2011 and early January 2012, Plaintiff suffered a severe mental health breakdown. At the time, Plaintiff engaged in workplace behaviors that were outrageously disruptive and unprofessional. Though these behaviors were plainly
contrary to the standards applicable to all of its faculty and employees, William Mitchell did not at that time discipline Plaintiff, but instead consulted with his psychiatrist, Dr. Barry Garfinkel. Dr. Garfinkel informed William Mitchell that Plaintiffs condition rendered him incapable of performing the role of a law professor. recommended that Plaintiff be placed on a leave of absence. William Mitchell granted Plaintiff a semester-long leave of absence with pay. Because Plaintiffs behavior was so disruptive to the normal operation of the school, William Mitchell instructed Plaintiff that he was not to be on William Mitchell campus during his leave of absence. Plaintiff was informed that he could resume his normal faculty duties as soon as William Mitchell received adequate medical certification that Plaintiff could resume normal faculty duties without disrupting the normal business of William Mitchell. In May of 2012, Plaintiff requested another period of leave from William Mitchell because he remained, in the opinion of his treating professionals, "unable to carry out his normal duties as a professor for any time in the near future." Though William Mitchells Dr. Garfinkel
5946895v6
Tenure Code permits the dismissal of professors who are not able to perform their duties, William Mitchell accommodated Plaintiff's request and extended his leave. During his leave, Plaintiff continued to engage in unprofessional, disruptive, and dishonest conduct. He sent disrespectful, unprofessional, and untruthful emails to fellow employees, without a valid business purpose. He misrepresented his marital status in an attempt to withdraw funds from his retirement accounts. He vilified and threatened retaliation against faculty colleagues and college officials who, in the exercise of their collegial governance responsibilities, did not acquiesce to his unreasonable demands. And, he repeatedly disregarded and disrespected the normal standards of professional conduct required of all employees of William Mitchell, standards that are necessary to maintain a suitable environment for the advancement of the mission of William Mitchell in the education of future lawyers. William Mitchell is committed to the principles of non-discrimination and accommodation of disabilities, absent undue hardship. However, any accommodation provided to Plaintiff must be provided in a manner that preserves a culture of respect and professionalism for all of William Mitchell's faculty, staff, and students. Plaintiff is currently on a leave of absence from William Mitchell. The only reason he was not allowed to return to work in the Fall of 2013 is because he refused to provide sufficient medical certification of his fitness for duty, despite repeated requests from William Mitchell. As of the date of this Answer, Plantiff remains on a leave of absence because he has not identified a reasonable accommodation that would allow him to return to work, without undue hardship, nor has he agreed to any of the alternative
5946895v6
accommodations proposed by William Mitchell.
Nevertheless, William Mitchell
continues to work with Plaintiff in good faith to address his request to return to work. OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINT Defendants object to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and 8(d)(1) that a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement" of the pleader's claims and that "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Defendants object that many of the allegations in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, as well as the numerous exhibits and footnotes appended to it, are redundant, immaterial, and impertinent to Plaintiffs Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Defendants further object that many of the exhibits incorporated into Plaintiff's Complaint are not "written instruments" within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) and, therefore, should not be included in the Complaint. RESPONSES TO ALLEGATIONS Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendants state in Answer to the First Amended Complaint as follows: Introduction 1. With respect to paragraph A(1), and footnotes 15, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff is an adult individual and a tenured Professor of Law at William Mitchell. Defendants admit that Plaintiff gained tenure in 1986 and has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"). Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph A(1) and footnotes 15 and, therefore, deny the same.
5946895v6
2.
With respect to paragraph A(2), Defendants admit that Plaintiff has been
seen by psychiatrist Dr. Barry Garfinkel and licensed psychologist Patrick Dougherty concerning his PTSD diagnosis. Defendants William Mitchell College of Law, Eric Janus, Niels Schaumann, and Mary Gale learned of Plaintiff's PTSD diagnosis in or about March of 2011. Defendant Kathleen Flynn-Peterson learned about Plaintiff's PTSD diagnosis in or about January of 2012. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph A(2) and, therefore, deny the same. 3. With respect to paragraph A(3), footnotes 69, and the "table of contents"
on pages 35 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff has been excluded from the William Mitchell College of Law since January 13, 2012, as a result of Plaintiff's erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behavior. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph A(3), footnotes 69, and the "table of contents" on pages 35 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. To the extent Paragraph A(3),
footnotes 6-9 and the "table of contents" state legal conclusions, no responses are required. 4. With respect to paragraph B(1) and footnotes 1016, Defendants state that
the allegations are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph B(1) and footnotes 1016 are deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 5. With respect to paragraph B(2) and footnote 17, Defendants deny the
allegations. To the extent Paragraph B(2) and footnote 17 state legal conclusions, no responses are required.
5946895v6
6.
With respect to paragraph B(3), Defendants deny the allegations. To the
extent Paragraph B(3) states legal conclusions, no responses are required. 7. With respect to paragraph B(4) and footnotes 1820, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff has been excluded from the William Mitchell College of Law since January 13, 2012, as a result of Plaintiff's erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behavior. Defendants admit that William Mitchell offered FMLA leave to Plaintiff on or about January 9, 2012, and that Plaintiff refused FMLA leave at that time. Defendants further admit that Dean Janus informed Plaintiff that his return to work at William Mitchell would be contingent upon him providing a satisfactory medical certification of his ability to resume his job duties. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph B(4) and footnotes 18 20. 8. With respect to paragraph B(5) and footnotes 2122, Defendants admit that,
at different times, William Mitchell offered Plaintiff the opportunity to undergo a fitness for duty examination with either Dr. Ronald Groat or Dr. Michael Farnsworth to determine whether Plaintiff is capable of performing his essential job functions, with or without accommodation, and without posing a direct threat to the safety of himself or others. Defendants admit that Dr. Groat requested to interview Plaintiffs wife and review Dr. Garfinkels treatment notes because Dr. Groat, in his professional opinion, deemed those activities to be medically necessary to determine Plaintiffs fitness for duty. Defendants admit that Dr. Farnsworth requested to review Dr. Garfinkels treatment notes because Dr. Farnsworth, in his professional opinion, deemed that activity to be
5946895v6
medically necessary to determine Plaintiffs fitness for duty. remaining allegations in paragraph B(5) and footnotes 2122. 9.
Defendants deny the
With respect to paragraph B(6) and footnotes 2328, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff provided to William Mitchell on or about January 9, 2014, a letter from Dr. Garfinkel dated January 2, 2014, which purported to retroactively certify Plaintiff's fitness for duty. Defendants deny that the January 2, 2014 provided sufficient
certification of Plaintiff's fitness for duty. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph B(6) and footnotes 2328. 10. 11. With respect to paragraph B(7), Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph B(8), Defendants admit that, as of the date of this
Answer, Plaintiff has not been allowed to resume work at William Mitchell. Defendants affirmatively state that they are working with Plaintiff in good faith and in an effort to determine if Plaintiff can perform the essential functions of his job, with or without a reasonable accommodation that does not cause an undue hardship. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph B(8). conclusions, no response is required. 12. With respect to paragraph B(9), Defendants state that the allegations are To the extent Paragraph B(8) states legal
legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph B(9) is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 13. With respect to paragraph B(10), Defendants state that the allegations are
legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph B(10) is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same.
5946895v6
14.
With respect to paragraph C(1), Defendants state that the allegations are
legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph C(1) is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 15. With respect to paragraph D(1), Defendants state that the allegations are
legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph D(1) is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 16. With respect to paragraph E(1) and footnote 29, Defendants state that the
allegations are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph E(1) and footnote 29 are deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 17. With respect to paragraph F(1) and footnotes 3031, Defendants state that
the allegations are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph F(1) and footnotes 3031 are deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 18. With respect to paragraph G(1) and footnote 32, Defendants state that the
allegations are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph G(1) and footnote 32 are deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 19. With respect to paragraph H(1) and footnote 33, Defendants state that the
allegations are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph H(1) and footnote 33 are deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same.
5946895v6
20.
With respect to paragraph H(2), Defendants state that the allegations are
legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph H(2) is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 21. With respect to the first paragraph I(1) on page 13 of Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint, Defendants state that the allegations are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent the first paragraph I(1) on page 13 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 22. With respect to the first paragraph I(2) on page 13 of Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint, Defendants state that the allegations are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent the first paragraph I(2) on page 13 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 23. With respect to paragraph J(1), Defendants state that the allegations are
legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph J(1) is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 24. With respect to the first paragraph J(2), Defendants state that the allegations
are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph J(2) is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 25. With respect to paragraph J(3), Defendants admit that Plaintiff has filed
three charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which are currently pending. Defendants deny that Plaintiff's charges of discrimination
5946895v6
have any factual or legal merit.
The Defendants state that the remainder of the
allegations in paragraph J(3) are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent the remainder of the allegations in paragraph J(3) are deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 26. With respect to the second paragraph I(1) on page 14 of Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint, Defendants state that the allegations are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent the second paragraph I(1) on page 14 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 27. With respect to the second paragraph I(2) on page 15 of Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint, Defendants state that the allegations are legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent the second paragraph I(2) on page 15 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. 28. With respect to paragraph I(3), Defendants state that the allegations are
legal conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph I(3) is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. Jurisdiction and Venue 29. With respect to paragraph 1, Defendants state that the allegations are legal
conclusions for which no responses are required. To the extent paragraph 1 is deemed to set forth factual allegations, Defendants deny the same. Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiffs Complaint includes federal statutory causes of action.
5946895v6
10
30. 31.
With respect to paragraph 2, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 3, Defendants admit that William Mitchell
employs over 50 people within 75 miles of its campus. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. With respect to paragraph 4, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 5, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 6, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 7, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 8, Defendants state that the allegation is a legal
conclusion to which no response is required. 37. 38. 39. 40. With respect to paragraph 9, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 10, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 11, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 12, Defendants state that the allegation is a legal
conclusion to which no response is required. 41. With respect to paragraph 13, Defendants admit that a number of events in
this action are alleged to have occurred in St. Paul, Minnesota, between January 3, 2012 and the present. 42. With respect to paragraph 14, Defendants state that the allegations are legal
conclusions to which no responses are required. 43. With respect to paragraph 15, Defendants state that the allegation is a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
5946895v6
11
Statement of Facts 44. With respect to paragraph 16, Defendants admit that Plaintiff is a tenured
Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law and began teaching there in 1983. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 16. 45. With respect to paragraph 17, Defendants admit that Plaintiff became a
tenured Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law in 1986 pursuant to a vote of the tenured faculty and the Board of Trustees. allegations in paragraph 17. 46. 47. 48. With respect to paragraph 18, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 19, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 20 and footnote 34, Defendants admit that Defendants deny the remaining
Plaintiff served as a defense counsel in the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) from 2003 to 2011, but deny that Plaintiffs service with the ICTR was part of his duties as a law professor at William Mitchell. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 20 and footnote 34, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 49. With respect to paragraph 21 and footnote 35, Defendants lack sufficient
information to admit or deny the allegations. 50. With respect to paragraph 22 and footnote 36, Defendants lack sufficient
information to admit or deny the allegations.
5946895v6
12
52.
With respect to paragraph 24 and footnote 38, Defendants lack sufficient
information to admit or deny the allegations. 53. With respect to paragraph 25 and footnotes 3940, Defendants lack
sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 54. With respect to paragraph 26 and footnote 41, Defendants admit that
William Mitchell and Dean Eric Janus were generally supportive of Plaintiffs activities in Rwanda, but deny that they were part of Plaintiffs job duties as a law professor at William Mitchell. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 26 and footnote 41, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 55. With respect to paragraph 27, Defendants lack sufficient information to
admit or deny the allegations. 56. With respect to paragraph 28 and footnote 42, Defendants lack sufficient
information to admit or deny the allegations. 59. With respect to paragraph 31 and footnote 45, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff was arrested in Rwanda and charged with holocaust denial on or about May 28, 2010. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 31 and footnote 45,
Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations.
5946895v6
13
60.
With respect to paragraph 32, Defendants lack sufficient information to
admit or deny the allegations. 61. With respect to paragraph 33, Defendants lack sufficient information to
admit or deny the allegations. 62. With respect to the first paragraph 34 on page 18 of Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 63. With respect to the second paragraph 34 and footnote 46 on page 18 of
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that William Mitchell College of Law and the United States State Department worked to secure Plaintiffs release from his imprisonment in Rwanda and that Plaintiff was released and allowed to return to the United States in June of 2010. With respect to the remaining allegations in the second paragraph 34 and footnote 46 on page 18 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 64. 65. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint does not include a paragraph 35. With respect to paragraph 36 and footnotes 4750, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff has been diagnosed with PTSD and that Plaintiff engaged in speaking engagements, litigation, and scholarship relating to Rwanda after his return to the United States. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 36 and footnotes 4750, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 66. With respect to paragraph 37 and footnotes 5152, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff has seen Dr. Garfinkel and Licensed Psychologist Patrick Dougherty for his
5946895v6
14
PTSD diagnosis. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 37 and footnotes 5152, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 67. With respect to paragraph 38 and footnotes 5354, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff has been diagnosed with PTSD. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 38 and footnotes 5354, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 68. With respect to paragraph 39, Defendants lack sufficient information to
admit or deny the allegations. 71. With respect to paragraph 42 and footnote 55, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff has been diagnosed with PTSD. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 42 and footnote 55, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 72. With respect to paragraph 43 and footnote 56, Defendants lack sufficient
information to admit or deny the allegations. 73. With respect to paragraph 44, Defendants admit that Plaintiff has sought
treatment from Dr. Garfinkel and Licensed Psychologist Patrick Dougherty for his PTSD diagnosis. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 44, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations.
5946895v6
15
74.
With respect to paragraph 45 and footnote 57, Defendants deny that
Plaintiff has performed the essential functions of his job, with or without accommodations, since January of 2012. 75. With respect to paragraph 46 and footnote 58, Defendants admit that
William Mitchell, Dean Janus, and Vice Dean Schaumann became aware of Plaintiffs PTSD diagnosis in approximately March of 2011. The William Mitchell Board of
Trustees became aware of Plaintiff's PTSD diagnosis in January of 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 46 and footnote 58. 76. 77. With respect to paragraph 47, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 48, Defendants admit that William Mitchell did
not display its banners or insignia during Plaintiffs press conference, which was consistent with William Mitchells policies as stated in II(B) of the Revised Tenure Code. 78. With respect to paragraph 49 and footnote 59, Defendants admit that Dean
Janus counseled Plaintiff for his behavior during his press conference and afterwards offered an apology to Plaintiff for reacting so strongly. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 49 and footnote 59. 79. With respect to paragraph 50 and footnote 60, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff taught classes and published scholarly works during the 201011 school year. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 50 and footnote 60. 80. With respect to paragraph 51 and footnote 61, Defendants lack sufficient
information to admit or deny the allegations.
5946895v6
16
81.
information to admit or deny the allegations. 84. With respect to paragraph 55, Defendants lack sufficient information to
information to admit or deny the allegations. 88. With respect to paragraph 59, Defendants admit that Dr. Garfinkel
recommended that Plaintiff should not return to Africa in or about March of 2011. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 59, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 89. With respect to paragraph 60 and footnote 64, Defendants lack sufficient
admit or deny the allegations.
5946895v6
17
91.
With respect to paragraph 62, Defendants admit that, in or about March of
2011, Plaintiff provided to William Mitchell a heavily redacted copy of a letter from Dr. Garfinkel advising that Plaintiff should not return to Africa. 92. With respect to paragraph 63 and footnote 65, Defendants lack sufficient
information to admit or deny the allegations. 94. With respect to paragraph 65, Defendants deny the allegations. Defendants
affirmatively state that on May 10, 2011, Dean Janus asked Plaintiff whether he needed any accommodations for his PTSD diagnosis and that Plaintiff never responded to this question. Later, when Plaintiffs behavior indicated he could no longer perform his essential job functions, William Mitchell accommodated Plaintiff by giving him an extended leave of absence. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. allegations. 101. With respect to paragraph 72, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 66, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 67, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 68, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 69, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 70, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 71 and footnote 67, Defendants admit the
5946895v6
18
102.
admit or deny the allegations. 103. With respect to paragraph 74 and footnote 68, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff attended a William Mitchell faculty meeting on December 14, 2011. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 74 and footnote 68. 104. allegations. 105. With respect to paragraph 76, Defendants admit that Dean Janus did not With respect to paragraph 75 and footnote 69, Defendants deny the
attribute his statement to Plaintiff. Defendants deny that such attribution was required by law or any other standard. Defendants affirmatively state that Dean Januss work
concerning the debt burden of William Mitchell students was different from Plaintiffs work on that topic and that any attribution to Plaintiff would have been inaccurate. 106. With respect to paragraph 77, Defendants admit that Dean Janus discussed
debt-at-graduation as a strength of William Mitchell, but Defendants state that Dean Janus' work was different from Plaintiff's work, which was not unique to Plaintiff. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 77. 107. With respect to paragraph 78 and footnote 70, Defendants admit the
allegations in paragraph 78, but deny the allegations in footnote 70. 108. 109. With respect to paragraph 79, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 80, Defendants admit the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiffs December 22, 2011 email to William
5946895v6
19
Mitchells marketing staff was disrespectful, offensive, and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism expected of professors of law at William Mitchell. 110. With respect to paragraph 81, Defendants deny the allegations. Defendants
affirmatively state that Plaintiffs December 22, 2011 email to William Mitchells marketing staff was disrespectful, offensive, and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism expected of professors of law at William Mitchell. 111. With respect to paragraph 82, Defendants admit that Plaintiff forwarded an
email from the Muslim Legal Fund of America to William Mitchells marketing staff on December 22, 2011. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 82,
Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 112. With respect to paragraph 83, Defendants admit the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiffs January 2, 2012 emails to William Mitchells marketing staff were disrespectful, menacing, offensive, and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism expected of professors of law at William Mitchell. 113. With respect to paragraph 84, Defendants admit that Plaintiff purported to
use what he characterized as Chicago-ese in his January 2, 2012 emails to William Mitchells marketing staff. Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiffs January 2, 2012 emails to William Mitchells marketing staff were disrespectful, offensive, and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism expected of professors of law at William Mitchell. 114. 115. With respect to paragraph 85, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 86, Defendants admit the allegations.
5946895v6
20
116.
admit or deny the allegations. 117. allegations. 118. allegations. 119. With respect to paragraph 90, Defendants deny the allegation that Dean With respect to paragraph 89 and footnote 72, Defendants admit the With respect to paragraph 88 and footnote 71, Defendants admit the
Janus did not maintain Plaintiffs emails as confidential and further deny the implication that there was any legal requirement to maintain Plaintiffs emails as confidential. With respect to the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 90, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 120. With respect to paragraph 91, Defendants admit that Plaintiff wrote an
email containing assertions of alleged unfair treatment, but deny that the assertions in Plaintiff's January 4, 2012 email tended to show Dean Janus's alleged "intent to harm." 121. With respect to paragraph 92, Defendants admit that the selective quotation
in paragraph 92 is from an email from Plaintiff sent on January 4, 2012. 122. With respect to paragraph 93 and footnote 73, Defendants admit that the
selective quotation in paragraph 98 is from an email Plaintiff sent on January 5, 2012. 123. With respect to paragraph 94, Defendants admit that Plaintiff purported to
demand confidentiality of his email communications. Defendants deny that there is any legal requirement to maintain Plaintiffs email communications as confidential.
5946895v6
21
124.
With respect to paragraph 95, Defendants admit that Plaintiff asserted that
his wife was traumatized by his experiences in Rwanda. 125. With respect to paragraph 96, Defendants admit that Plaintiff stated in an
email that he sent on January 5, 2012, "I am seeing Dr. Garfinkle on 1/10 and will keep you posted." 126. With respect to paragraph 97, Defendants admit that Plaintiff alleged that
disrespect triggered his experience as a prisoner in Rwanda, but Defendants deny that they disrespected Plaintiff in any way. 127. With respect to paragraph 98, Defendants admit that the selective quotes in
paragraph 98 are from an email that Vice Dean Schaumann sent on January 5, 2012, but Defendants deny that Plaintiffs paraphrasing of the email is accurate. 128. 129. With respect to paragraph 99, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 100, Defendants admit that Plaintiff wrote in a
January 5, 2012 email that "I'd prefer not to have further direct communication." Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 100. 130. 131. With respect to paragraph 101, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 102, Defendants admit that Plaintiff wrote in an
email dated January 5, 2012: If you are not going to respond to my email requests, you are right that will not do much good. Defendants affirmatively state that in the same email, Plaintiff wrote: Please refrain from sending emails, or having any contact with me at all and I agree that further email exchange is unnecessary . . . .
5946895v6
22
132.
With respect to paragraph 103, Defendants admit that Plaintiff wrote in an
email dated January 5, 2012: . . . . had you asked, you would have known that is the EXACT time I am meeting with Dr. Garfinkle. allegations in paragraph 103. 133. With respect to paragraph 104, Defendants admit that the selective Defendants deny the remaining
quotation in paragraph 104 is from an email that Plaintiff sent on January 5, 2012. 134. With respect to paragraph 105, Defendants admit the allegations and admit
that the selective quotation in paragraph 105 is from an email that Plaintiff sent on January 6, 2012. 135. With respect to paragraph 106, Defendants admit that the selective
quotations in paragraph 106 are from an email that Plaintiff sent on January 6, 2012. 136. 137. 138. With respect to paragraph 107, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 108, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 109, Defendants admit that Plaintiff sent an
email on January 6, 2012 that stated, "Please leave me alone to do my work. Please, a little human respect. Please coop w/dr interviews and scientific tests." Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 109. 139. With respect to paragraph 110, Defendants admit that the quote in
paragraph 110 is from an email that Plaintiff sent at 3:43 a.m. on January 7, 2012. Defendants deny that they ever agreed to maintain Plaintiffs emails as confidential or that there is any legal requirement to maintain Plaintiffs emails as confidential.
5946895v6
23
140.
With respect to paragraph 111 and footnote 74, Defendants deny that
Plaintiffs characterization of the email he sent at 12:57 p.m. on January 7, 2012, in paragraph 116 is accurate. Defendants affirmatively state that the email that Plaintiff sent at 12:57 p.m. on January 7, 2012 included numerous vulgar and unprofessional statements. With respect to footnote 74, Defendants admit that William Mitchell
consulted with Dr. Ronald Groat regarding Plaintiffs increasingly erratic and unprofessional behavior in January of 2012. Defendants admit that William Mitchell offered Plaintiff the opportunity to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination with Dr. Groat in the Fall of 2013 because of Plaintiffs refusal to provide sufficient medical certification of his fitness for duty from his own health care providers. remaining allegations in paragraph 111 and footnote 74. 141. With respect to paragraph 112, Defendants admit that the selective quotes Defendants deny the
in paragraph 112 are from an email that Plaintiff sent at 10:34 a.m. on January 8, 2012. Defendants deny that the accommodations proposed in that email were reasonable, required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, or would have enabled Plaintiff to perform his essential job functions. Defendants further state that Plaintiffs January 8, 2012 email strongly indicated he was not capable of performing his essential job functions as a professor of law, with or without accommodation. 142. With respect to paragraph 113, Defendants admit that Plaintiff suddenly
announced on January 8, 2012, that he would begin a sabbatical two weeks into the spring 2012 semester at William Mitchell. Defendants deny that Plaintiff was eligible for a sabbatical at the time under William Mitchells policies or that a sabbatical was
5946895v6
24
consistent with the recommendations of Plaintiffs health care providers. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 113. 143. With respect to paragraph 114 and footnotes 7576, Defendants admit that
Dean Janus offered Plaintiff a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) on January 9, 2012, and that Plaintiff refused FMLA leave at that time. Defendants admit that the selective quotations included in paragraph 114 are from an email that Dean Janus sent on January 9, 2012. 144. allegations. 145. With respect to paragraph 116 and footnote 78, Defendants lack sufficient With respect to paragraph 115 and footnote 77, Defendants deny the
admit or deny the allegations, but Defendants admit that Plaintiff refused to take a voluntary leave of absence in January of 2012. 149. With respect to paragraph 120, Defendants admit that Plaintiff rejected
Dean Januss offer to take FMLA leave via an email dated January 10, 2012, but deny that Plaintiffs characterizations of William Mitchells policies regarding leaves of absence or sabbaticals are accurate.
5946895v6
25
150.
With respect to paragraph 121, Defendants admit the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff authorized Dean Janus to speak to Dr. Garfinkel. 151. With respect to paragraph 122 and footnote 79, Defendants deny the
allegations. Defendants affirmatively state that Dean Janus discussed with Dr. Garfinkel the issue of whether Plaintiff posed a danger to himself or others and that Dr. Garfinkel made inconsistent statements concerning whether Plaintiff was dangerous. 152. 153. With respect to paragraph 123, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 124, Defendants deny the allegations, but admit
that Simon Canick believed Plaintiff made a threat in his conversation with Canick on January 11, 2012. 154. With respect to paragraph 125 and footnote 80, Defendants deny the
allegations. Defendants affirmatively state that Simon Canicks January 11, 2012 email states that I was starting to see him as dangerous and that I heard his words as a threat. 155. 156. With respect to paragraph 126, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 127, Defendants admit that William Mitchell
placed Professor Erlinder on a paid leave of absence for the spring semester of 2012 based, in part, on the recommendations of Dr. Garfinkel. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 127, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations.
5946895v6
26
157.
With respect to paragraph 128, Defendants admit that Dean Janus made the
decision to exclude Plaintiff from William Mitchell's campus on January 13, 2012. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 128. 158. 159. With respect to paragraph 129, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 130 and footnote 81, Defendants admit that Dean
Janus sent a letter to Plaintiff on January 13, 2012. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 130 and footnote 81, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. 160. With respect to paragraph 131, Defendants admit that the selected
quotations in paragraph 131 are from a letter that Dean Janus sent to Plaintiff on January 13, 2012. 161. With respect to paragraph 132, Defendants admit that Dean Janus advised
Plaintiff on January 13, 2012 that you are not to enter upon or into College buildings or any part of the College campus, and this restriction will continue during the period of your leave. Defendants affirmatively state that it was appropriate and reasonable to exclude Plaintiff from William Mitchells campus because of his erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behavior. Because of Plaintiffs erratic, disruptive, and intimidating
behavior, Defendants deny that Plaintiff was similarly situated to any other faculty members who took leaves of absence. 162. With respect to paragraph 133, Defendants admit that Dean Januss January
13, 2012 letter informed Plaintiff that his return to work at William Mitchell would be
5946895v6
27
contingent upon your receiving a satisfactory medical certification that you are able to resume . . . your duties as a member of the Colleges faculty. Because Plaintiff had refused FMLA leave, Defendants deny that the FMLA or its implementing regulations applied to Plaintiffs leave of absence beginning on January 13, 2012. 163. With respect to paragraph 134, Defendants admit that the selective
quotations in paragraph 134 are from William Mitchells Revised Tenure Code, but Defendants deny that paragraph 134 fully describes all of Plaintiffs essential job functions. 164. With respect to paragraph 135, Defendants admit the allegations, but clarify
that Simon Canick spoke with Dean Janus over the phone. 165. With respect to paragraph 136 and footnote 83, Defendants admit that the
selective quotations in paragraph 136 are from an email sent by Simon Canick on January 15, 2012. Defendant deny Plaintiffs allegation that Simon Canicks offer to assist Plaintiff in any way diminishes the seriousness of Plaintiffs intimidating behavior in January of 2012. 166. With respect to paragraph 137, Defendants admit that, on January 9, 2012,
and January 13, 2012, Dean Janus did not specifically enumerate the criteria that a medical certification for Plaintiffs eventual return to work would need to satisfy. Defendants affirmatively state that there was no legal requirement for William Mitchell to enumerate that criteria at that time, and Plaintiff did not request William Mitchell to do so. Defendants deny that Dean Janus had no criteria for Plaintiff's resumption of duties.
5946895v6
28
167.
With respect to paragraph 138, Defendants admit that Dean Januss
correspondence on January 9, 2012, and January 13, 2012, did not explain the basis for Plaintiffs exclusion from campus, nor did it explain how Plaintiffs leave of absence was different from leaves of absence taken by other faculty members. Defendants
affirmatively state that William Mitchell was not legally required to provide these explanations to Plaintiff in January of 2012, and that Plaintiff did not request these explanations from William Mitchell at that time. 168. With respect to paragraph 139, Defendants admit that William Mitchell was
aware of Plaintiffs PTSD diagnosis in January of 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 139. 169. With respect to paragraph 140 and footnote 84, Defendants deny the
allegations. Defendants further deny that Sections V or VII of the Revised Tenure Code were applicable to Plaintiffs leave of absence. 170. With respect to paragraph 141, Defendants admit William Mitchell did not
allow Professor Erlinder to continue performing his job duties during his leave of absence. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 141. Defendants affirmatively state that their actions were consistent with the advice of Plaintiffs health care provider, Dr. Garfinkel, who advised that Plaintiff was not capable of performing the essential functions of his job as a professor of law and required a leave of absence. 171. With respect to paragraph 142, Defendants deny the allegations.
5946895v6
29
172.
With respect to paragraph 143, Defendants admit that William Mitchell
hired plain clothes security guards to attend the graduation on January 14, 2012 because of Professor Erlinders erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behavior. 173. 174. 175. With respect to paragraph 144, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 145, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 146, Defendants admit that William Mitchell
hired plain clothes security guards to attend the graduation on January 14, 2012, and to be stationed in the Deans suite at William Mitchell between January 1320, 2012, because of Professor Erlinders erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behavior. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 146. 176. With respect to paragraph 147, Defendants admit that William Mitchell
hired plain clothes security guards to be stationed in the Deans suite at William Mitchell between January 1320, 2012, because of Professor Erlinders erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behavior. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 147. 177. With respect to paragraph 148 and footnote 85, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff emailed the Chair of the Board of Trustees on January 21, 2012. Among other things, Plaintiffs email alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and requested that he be restored to normal faculty status. 178. With respect to paragraph 149 and footnote 86, Defendants admit that
William Mitchell informed Plaintiff that it would hire Fran Sepler to investigate Plaintiffs allegations of wrongdoing by Dean Janus and Vice Dean Schaumann. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 149 and footnote 86.
5946895v6
30
179.
With respect to paragraph 150, Defendants deny the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that the Board of Trustees conducted a thorough investigation of Plaintiffs allegations and determined they were unfounded. In addition, Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff did not request any remedies under the Revised Tenure Code from the Board of Trustees. Defendants further state that requests for relief under Section VII of the Revised Tenure Code must be directed to the Chair of the Tenure Committee, not the Board of Trustees. 180. 181. With respect to paragraph 151, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 152, Defendants admit that Fran Sepler was hired
to investigate Plaintiffs allegations of wrongdoing, not to work out reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff. 182. 183. 184. With respect to paragraph 153, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 154, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 155, Defendants lack sufficient information to
admit or deny the allegations. 185. With respect to paragraph 156, to the extent that paragraph 156 states a
legal conclusion, no response is required. To the extent that paragraph 156 contains factual allegations, defendants deny the allegations. 186. With respect to paragraph 157, Defendants deny the allegations, but
affirmatively state that Dr. Garfinkel has denied that Professor Erlinder presented a danger at various times after Ms. Sepler's investigation. 187. With respect to paragraph 158, Defendants admit the allegations.
5946895v6
31
188.
With respect to paragraph 159, Defendants admit that after the Board of
Trustees informed Plaintiff of the results of its investigation, Plaintiff submitted letters to the Board Chair from Dr. Garfinkel and Mr. Dougherty. 189. 190. With respect to paragraph 160, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 161 and footnote 87, Defendants admit that the
Board of Trustees informed Plaintiff that its investigation determined his allegations of wrongdoing against Dean Janus were unfounded in a letter dated April 3, 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 161 and footnote 87. 191. With respect to paragraph 162, Defendants deny the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that the Board of Trustees conducted a thorough investigation of Plaintiffs allegations and determined they were unfounded. In addition, Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff did not request any remedies under the Revised Tenure Code from the Board of Trustees. Defendants further state that requests for relief under Sections V and VII of the Revised Tenure Code must be directed to either the Dean or the Chair of the Tenure Committee, not the Board of Trustees. 192. With respect to paragraph 163, Defendants admit that Dean Janus sent a Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
letter to Plaintiff on April 5, 2012. paragraph 163. 193.
Defendants affirmatively state that Dean Januss April 5, 2012 letter informed Plaintiff that in order to return to work, he would first need to provide medical certification
5946895v6
32
addressing his ability to refrain from [w]ritten and oral communications that are, or can reasonably be understood to be, intimidating, menacing, harassing, or threatening. 194. With respect to paragraph 165, Defendants admit that Dean Januss April
5, 2012 identified criteria that a medical certification for Plaintiff would need to address before Plaintiff could return to work at William Mitchell. Defendants affirmatively state that these criteria were based on Plaintiffs erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behaviors before and during his leave of absence. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 165. 195. With respect to paragraph 166 and footnote 88, Defendants admit that the
selective quotations in paragraph 166 are from Dean Januss April 5, 2012 letter. Defendants affirmatively state that these criteria were based on Plaintiffs erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behaviors before and during his leave of absence. 196. With respect to paragraph 167, Defendants admit the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that there was no legal requirement for William Mitchell to enumerate the specific criteria for his return to work in January of 2012, and Plaintiff did not request William Mitchell to do so. 197. With respect to paragraph 168, Defendants admit that the behaviors listed
in paragraph 166 of Plaintiffs Complaint are not medical conditions, but are behaviors. Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff engaged in these behaviors before and during his leave of absence and that they reasonably appeared to be related to his PTSD diagnosis. Defendants further state that Plaintiffs ability to refrain from these behaviors is necessary for him to perform his essential job functions as a professor of law at
5946895v6
33
William Mitchell. Defendants deny that it was inappropriate for William Mitchell to request medical certification addressing Plaintiffs ability to perform his essential job functions. 198. With respect to paragraph 169 and footnote 89, Defendants admit that the
selective quotations in paragraph 169 are from a letter authored by Mr. Dougherty dated April 10, 2012. Defendants affirmatively state that Mr. Doughertys April 10, 2012 letter stated that Plaintiff was unable to carry out his normal duties as a professor for any time in the near future. 199. With respect to paragraph 170 and footnote 90, Defendants admit that the
selective quotations in paragraph 170 are from a letter from Dr. Garfinkel dated April 5, 2012. Defendants affirmatively state that Dr. Garfinkels April 5, 2012 letter did not certify that Plaintiff was presently able to perform his essential job functions, with or without accommodation. 200. 201. 202. With respect to paragraph 171, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 172, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 173, Defendants deny the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff requested to extend his leave of absence for "another year" in an email dated May 29, 2012. 203. 204. With respect to paragraph 174, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 175 and footnote 91, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff sent a letter to Dean Janus on April 25, 2012.
5946895v6
34
205.
With respect to paragraph 176 and footnote 92, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Board Chair on or about May 4, 2012, which included letters from Mr. Dougherty and Dr. Garfinkel. 206. allegations. 207. allegations. 208. With respect to paragraph 179 and footnote 95, Defendants admit that on With respect to paragraph 178 and footnote 94, Defendants admit the With respect to paragraph 177 and footnote 93, Defendants deny the
January 9, 2014, Plaintiff provided William Mitchell with a letter from Dr. Garfinkel dated January 2, 2014, which purported to declare Plaintiff retroactively fit to resume his job duties as of May 14, 2013, but deny that a previous letter from Dr. Garfinkel dated May 14, 2013 letter stated that Plaintiff was fit to resume his job duties. Defendants further deny that Dr. Garfinkels January 2, 2014 letter constituted sufficient certification of Plaintiffs fitness for duty to return to work, retroactively or otherwise. 209. With respect to paragraph 180, Defendants admit the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that William Mitchell continues to work with Plaintiff in good faith to address his request to return to work. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. With respect to paragraph 181, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 182, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 183, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 184, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 185, Defendants deny the allegations.
5946895v6
35
215.
With respect to paragraph 186 and footnotes 9697, Defendants admit that
William Mitchell first identified the specific criteria for a sufficient medical certification in a letter to Plaintiff dated April 5, 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 186 and footnotes 9697. 216. With respect to paragraph 187, Defendants admit that in or about April of
2012, Plaintiff asked for the reasons for his exclusion from William Mitchells campus, and that on May 11, 2012, Dean Janus sent an email to Plaintiff explaining the reasons for the exclusion, including but not limited to the threats that Plaintiff made in January of 2012. 217. With respect to paragraph 188, Defendants admit that Dean Januss May
11, 2012 email to Plaintiff identified his threatening language towards William Mitchells marketing staff in January of 2012 and his January 11, 2012 threatening language in a conversation with Defendant Canick as some of the reasons for his exclusion from campus. Defendants deny that the allegations of Plaintiffs threats in January of 2012 were unfounded. 218. With respect to paragraph 189, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs threats to
William Mitchells marketing staff and his threatening statement in a conversation with Defendant Canick occurred prior to January 13, 2012. Defendants further admit that Dean Januss letter dated January 13, 2012 did not mention Plaintiffs threats. Defendants affirmatively state that there was no legal requirement for Dean Januss January 13, 2012 letter to explain the basis for Plaintiffs exclusion from campus during
5946895v6
36
his leave of absence. Defendants further state that Plaintiff did not inquire into the reasons for his exclusion from campus at that time. 219. With respect to paragraph 190, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs threats to
William Mitchells marketing staff and his threatening statement in a conversation with Defendant Canick occurred prior to January 13, 2012. Defendants further admit that Dean Januss letter dated January 13, 2012 did not mention Plaintiffs threats. Defendants affirmatively state that there was no legal requirement for Dean Januss January 13, 2012 letter to explain the basis for Plaintiffs exclusion from campus during his leave of absence. Defendants further state that Plaintiff did not inquire into the reasons for his exclusion from campus at that time. 220. With respect to paragraph 191, Defendants admit that Dean Januss January
13, 2012 letter did not refer to any threats or dangerousness. Defendants affirmatively state that there was no legal requirement for Dean Januss January 13, 2012 letter to explain the basis for Plaintiffs exclusion from campus during his leave of absence. Defendants further state that Plaintiff did not inquire into the reasons for his exclusion from campus at that time. 221. With respect to paragraph 192 and footnotes 9899, Defendants admit that
Mary Gale's May 31, 2012 letter to Professor Erlinder approved his request for FMLA leave and did not include a list of Professor Erlinder's essential job functions. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 192 and footnotes 9899. Defendants
affirmatively state that Plaintiff did not attempt to return to work at William Mitchell at the conclusion of his FMLA leave on September 22, 2012.
5946895v6
37
222.
With respect to paragraph 193, Defendants admit that William Mitchell
offered Plaintiff the opportunity to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination with Dr. Groat because Plaintiff appeared to be either unable or unwilling to obtain a sufficient medical certification of his fitness for duty from any of his health care providers. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 193. 223. With respect to paragraph 194, Defendants deny the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that William Mitchells consultation with Dr. Groat did not violate any confidentiality requirements. 224. With respect to paragraph 195, Defendants admit that Dean Janus said he
was not seeking to detenure Professor Erlinder at that time. 225. 226. With respect to paragraph 196, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 197, Defendants admit that faculty members are
ordinarily entitled to compensation while a hearing is pending under Sections V or VII of the Revised Tenure Code. Defendants deny that either Section V or Section VII of the Revised Tenure Code applies to Plaintiff's leave of absence. Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff was not entitled to compensation during his leave of absence under William Mitchells policies. 227. 228. With respect to paragraph 198, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 199, Defendants admit that dismissal
proceedings have not been initiated against Plaintiff and that, therefore, there has been no occasion to determine whether the moral turpitude exception applies to Plaintiff.
5946895v6
38
229.
With respect to paragraph 200, Defendants admit that Dean Januss
October 16, 2013 written submission to the Tenure Committee discussed William Mitchells consultation of Dr. Groat in January of 2012, but Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 200. 230. With respect to paragraph 201, Defendants admit that Plaintiff has been on
a leave of absence and excluded from William Mitchells campus since January 13, 2012. Defendants admit that Plaintiff has been on an unpaid leave of absence since July 1, 2012. Defendants further admit that Plaintiff is not listed in William Mitchells spring and fall 2014 teaching schedules. Defendants deny the remainder of paragraph 201. 231. 232. With respect to paragraph 202, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 203, Defendants lack sufficient information to
admit or deny the allegations. 233. 234. 235. 236. With respect to paragraph 204, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 205, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 206, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 207 and footnote 100, Defendants admit the
allegations, but deny that Plaintiff's charges of discrimination have any merit. 237. With respect to paragraph 208, Defendants deny the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that even if the allegations were true, they would be inadmissible as evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 408, and Plaintiffs disclosure of the allegations would violate the parties written and signed confidentiality agreement for the EEOC mediation that occurred on November 14, 2013.
5946895v6
39
238. 239.
With respect to paragraph 209, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 210, Defendants admit that Plaintiff was initially
on a paid leave of absence for reasons that appeared to be related to his PTSD diagnosis. 240. 241. With respect to paragraph 211, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 212, Defendants admit the allegations, except
Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff was paid short-term disability benefits that ended on September 22, 2012. 242. 243. allegations. 244. 245. With respect to paragraph 215, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 216, Defendants lack sufficient information to With respect to paragraph 213, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 214 and footnote 101, Defendants deny the
admit or deny the allegations, and therefore, deny the same. 246. With respect to paragraph 217, and each of its subparts, and footnotes 102
105, Defendants admit that Plaintiff applied for long-term disability benefits from SunLife and received a long-term disability settlement payment from SunLife. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 217, and each of its subparts and footnotes 102105. Defendants further deny that filing charges of discrimination
constitutes mitigation of damages. Claim I: Breach of Contract Against William Mitchell 247. With respect to paragraph 218, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer.
5946895v6
40
248.
With respect to paragraph 219, Defendants state that the allegations are
legal conclusions to which no responses are required. 249. With respect to paragraph 220, Defendants admit that Plaintiff is a tenured
professor and that, subject to certain exceptions and requirements, he has certain rights to continued employment under the Revised Tenure Code. Defendants affirmatively state that a condition precedent of Plaintiff's continued employment is that Plaintiff must be able to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without accommodation, and without posing a direct threat to the safety of himself or others. Defendants further state that Plaintiffs rights under the Revised Tenure Code are subject to William Mitchells policies and that, under the terms of William Mitchells policies, Plaintiff was not entitled to compensation during his leave of absence. 250. With respect to paragraph 221, Defendants admit that the Revised Tenure
Code specifies certain circumstances under which William Mitchell may revoke the tenure or a tenured professor, but deny that Plaintiffs tenure has been revoked. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. With respect to paragraph 222, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 223, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 224, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 225, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 226, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 227, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 228, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 229, Defendants deny the allegations.
5946895v6
41
259. 260. 261. 262. allegations.
With respect to paragraph 230, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 231, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 232, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 233 and footnote 106, Defendants deny the
Claim II: Promissory Estoppel Against William Mitchell 263. With respect to paragraph 234, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 264. With respect to paragraph 235, Defendants state that the allegations are
legal conclusions to which no responses are required. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. With respect to paragraph 236, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 237, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 238, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 239, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 240, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 241, Defendants deny the allegations.
Defendants affirmatively state that they have provided written notification to Plaintiff concerning multiple instances in which he violated the Revised Tenure Code. 271. allegations. 272. With respect to paragraph 243, Defendants admit the allegations, but deny With respect to paragraph 242 and footnote 107, Defendants deny the
that Section V of the Revised Tenure Code is applicable to Plaintiff's leave of absence.
5946895v6
42
273.
With respect to paragraph 244, Defendants admit the allegations, but deny
that Section V of the Revised Tenure Code is applicable to Plaintiff's leave of absence. 274. With respect to paragraph 245, Defendants deny the allegations.
Claim III: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Against William Mitchell 275. With respect to paragraph 246, Defendants restate each and every
legal conclusions to which no response is required. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. allegations. Claim IV: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationship Against Eric Janus 284. With respect to paragraph 255, Defendants restate each and every With respect to paragraph 248, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 249, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 250, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 251, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 252, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 253, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 254 and footnote 108, Defendants deny the
legal conclusions to which no responses are required.
5946895v6
43
286.
With respect to paragraph 257, Defendants admit that Plaintiff is a tenured
professor and that, subject to certain exceptions and requirements, he has certain rights to continued employment under the Revised Tenure Code. 287. With respect to paragraph 258, Defendants admit Dean Janus has actual
knowledge that Plaintiff is a tenured professor and that, subject to certain exceptions and requirements, he has certain rights to continued employment under the Revised Tenure Code. 288. With respect to paragraph 259, and each of its subparts, Defendants deny
the allegations. 289. 290. 291. 292. With respect to paragraph 260, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 261, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 262, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 263, Defendants deny the allegations.
Claim V: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Eric Janus 293. With respect to paragraph 264, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 294. With respect to paragraph 265, Defendants admit that Dean Janus was
aware of Plaintiffs PTSD diagnosis on January 3, 2012. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 265. 295. With respect to paragraph 266, and each of its subparts, Defendants deny
the allegations. 296. With respect to paragraph 267, Defendants deny the allegations.
5946895v6
44
297. 298.
With respect to paragraph 268, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 269, Defendants deny the allegations.
Claim VI: Defamation Against Eric Janus, William Mitchell, and Simon Canick 299. With respect to paragraph 270, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. With respect to paragraph 271, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 272, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 273, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 274, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 275, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 276, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 277, Defendants admit that William Mitchell had
legitimate safety concerns regarding Plaintiff due to his erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behavior in January of 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 277. 307. 308. 309. With respect to paragraph 278, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 279, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 280, Defendants deny the allegations.
Claim VII: Defamation By Implication Against Eric Janus, William Mitchell, and Simon Canick 310. With respect to paragraph 281, Defendants restate each and every
5946895v6
45
311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317.
With respect to paragraph 282, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 283, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 284, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 285, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 286, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 287, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 288, Defendants admit that William Mitchell had
legitimate safety concerns regarding Plaintiff due to his erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behavior in January of 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 288. 318. 319. With respect to paragraph 289, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 290, Defendants admit that William Mitchell had
legitimate safety concerns regarding Plaintiff due to his erratic, disruptive, and intimidating behavior in January of 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 290. 320. 321. 322. With respect to paragraph 291, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 292, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 293, Defendants deny the allegations.
Claim VIII: Disparate Treatment Age Discrimination Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act Against William Mitchell 323. With respect to paragraph 294, Defendants restate each and every
5946895v6
46
324. 325.
With respect to paragraph 295, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 296, Defendants admit the allegations, but deny
that Professor Gregory Duhl is similarly situated to Plaintiff. 326. With respect to paragraph 297, Defendants admit the allegations, but deny
that Professor Duhl is similarly situated to Plaintiff. 327. With respect to paragraph 298 and footnote 109, Defendants admit that
William Mitchell granted tenure to Professor Duhl, but deny that Professor Duhl has committed "more serious breaches of conduct" than Plaintiff, and further deny that Professor Duhl is similarly situated to Plaintiff. 328. With respect to paragraph 299 and footnote 110, Defendants admit the
allegations, but deny that Professor John Radsan is similarly situated to Plaintiff. 329. 330. With respect to paragraph 300, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 301, Defendants deny the allegations.
Claim IX: Disparate Treatment Age Discrimination Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act Against William Mitchell 331. With respect to paragraph 302, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 332. 333. 334. 335. allegations. With respect to paragraph 303, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 304, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 305, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 306 and footnote 111, Defendants admit the
5946895v6
47
336. 337.
With respect to paragraph 307, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 308, Defendants admit that the Voluntary
Separation Plan (VSP) has an age-neutral purpose, but deny the remainder of the allegations. 338. 339. With respect to paragraph 309, Defendants admit the allegations. With respect to paragraph 310, Defendants admit that Plaintiff proposed an
alternative to the VSP, but deny that Plaintiffs proposal would increase the income of William Mitchell or otherwise provide a viable alternative to the VSP. 340. 341. 342. With respect to paragraph 311, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 312, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 313, Defendants deny the allegations.
Claim X: Minn. Stat. 144.291298 Against William Mitchell 343. With respect to paragraph 314, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 344. 345. With respect to paragraph 315, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 316, Defendants deny the allegations. Claim XI: Minn. Stat. 176.138(d) Against William Mitchell 346. With respect to paragraph 317, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 347. 348. With respect to paragraph 318, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 319, Defendants deny the allegations.
5946895v6
48
Claim XII: FMLA 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) Against William Mitchell 349. With respect to paragraph 320, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 350. allegations. 351. 352. With respect to paragraph 322, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 323, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 321 and footnotes 112117, Defendants deny the
Claim XIII: FMLA 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) Against William Mitchell 353. With respect to paragraph 324, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. With respect to paragraph 325, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 326, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 327, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 328, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 329, Defendants deny the allegations.
Claim XIV: FMLA 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) Against William Mitchell 359. With respect to paragraph 330, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 360. 361. 362. 363. With respect to paragraph 331, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 332, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 333, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 334, Defendants deny the allegations.
5946895v6
49
Claim XV: FMLA 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(2) Against William Mitchell 364. With respect to paragraph 335, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. With respect to paragraph 336, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 337, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 338, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 339, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 340, Defendants deny the allegations. Claim XVI: FMLA 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) Against Eric Janus 370. With respect to paragraph 341, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 371. allegations. 372. 373. With respect to paragraph 343, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 344, Defendants deny the allegations. Claim XVII: FMLA 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) Against Eric Janus 374. With respect to paragraph 345, Defendants restate each and every With respect to paragraph 342 and footnote 118, Defendants deny the
paragraph of this Answer. 375. 376. 377. 378. With respect to paragraph 346, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 347, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 348, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 349, Defendants deny the allegations.
5946895v6
50
379.
Claim XVIII: FMLA 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) Against Eric Janus 380. With respect to paragraph 351, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 381. 382. 383. 384. With respect to paragraph 352, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 353, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 354, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 355, Defendants deny the allegations. Claim XIX: FMLA 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) Against Mary Gale 385. With respect to paragraph 356, Defendants restate each and every
paragraph of this Answer. 386. 387. 388. With respect to paragraph 357, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 358, Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to paragraph 359, Defendants deny the allegations. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Plaintiffs claims are barred by the following affirmative defenses: 1. 2. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. All actions taken by Defendants were based on legitimate business
considerations and were made in good faith and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 3. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of estoppel,
waiver, laches, untimeliness, consent, and/or unclean hands.
5946895v6
51
4.
Plaintiffs claims against Kathleen Flynn-Peterson and Niels Schaumann
are barred for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. 5. 6. Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, if any. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. 7. Plaintiffs claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, by the
doctrine of after acquired evidence. 8. limitation. 9. Plaintiffs damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by Plaintiffs own Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by applicable statutes of
actions or inactions or the actions or inactions of third parties over whom Defendants had no control. 10. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was unable to perform the essential functions
of his job as described in the Revised Tenure Code. 11. Plaintiff repeatedly violated the professionalism standards set forth in the
Revised Tenure Code before and during his leave of absence. 12. By their terms, Sections V and VII of the William Mitchell Revised Tenure
Code do not apply to Plaintiff's leave of absence. 13. Plaintiffs claim for promissory estoppel is barred because it is based on
Plaintiff's alleged contract for employment with William Mitchell and promissory estoppel is inapplicable when a contract exists between the parties.
5946895v6
52
14.
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not apply to
contracts for employment under Minnesota law. 15. Plaintiffs claims for intentional interference with contractual relationship
fail because none of the individually named defendants acted outside the scope of their duties as agents of William Mitchell. 16. Plaintiff's claims for intentional interference with contractual relationship
fail because no breach of contract occurred. 17. Plaintiff's claims for intentional interference with contractual relationship
fail because they are based on statements or implications that are true. 18. Plaintiff's common law claims are preempted by the Minnesota Human
Rights Act ("MHRA") to the extent they are based on alleged conduct prohibited by the MHRA. 19. Plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) fail
because the alleged actions of Dean Janus are not sufficiently outrageous to support a claim for IIED under Minnesota law. 20. Plaintiff's claim for IIED fails to state a plausible basis to conclude that
Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. 21. Plaintiffs claims for defamation and defamation by implication fail
because the allegedly defamatory statements and implications were true. 22. Plaintiffs claims for defamation and defamation by implication fail
because the allegedly defamatory statements and implications are protected by a qualified privilege.
5946895v6
53
23.
Plaintiff's claims for defamation and defamation by implication fail to the
extent that the allegedly defamatory statements or implications are not capable of being proven true or false. 24. Plaintiffs claim for disparate treatment age discrimination under the
MHRA fail because Plaintiff is not similarly situated to either Professor Duhl or Professor Radsan. Neither Professor Duhl nor Professor Radsan engaged in the same misconduct as Plaintiff, including but not limited to Plaintiff's erratic, disruptive, and intimidating conduct in January of 2012. 25. Plaintiff's claim for disparate treatment age discrimination under the
MHRA are barred to the extent they are based on alleged conduct that occurred outside the one-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. 363A.28, subd. 3. 26. Plaintiffs claim for disparate impact age discrimination under the MHRA
fail because the Voluntary Separation Plan ("VSP") established by William Mitchell is voluntary. 27. Plaintiffs claim for disparate impact age discrimination under the MHRA
fails because the VSP was a legitimate business necessity, and Plaintiff cannot identify a viable, non-discriminatory alternative to the VSP. 28. Plaintiff lacks standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to assert
his disparate impact age discrimination claim because he did not suffer an injury-in-fact from the VSP. 29. records. Defendants maintained the confidentiality of Plaintiff's workplace medical
5946895v6
54
30.
Plaintiff's emails to administrators or faculty members at William Mitchell
are not medical records or health records and are not subject to confidentiality requirements under any applicable laws. 31. Plaintiff is not a qualified individual with a disability under either the
Americans with Disabilities Act or the MHRA. 32. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was unable to perform the essential functions
of his job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and without posing a direct threat to the safety of himself or others. 33. Plaintiffs claims are barred because William Mitchell exercised reasonable
care to prevent and correct promptly any alleged harassing behavior and because Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities provided by William Mitchell or to otherwise avoid harm. 34. Minn. Stat. 176.138(d) does not apply to William Mitchell because it is
not a workers' compensation insurer, a self-insured employer, or a health insurer. 35. Minn. Stat. 176.138(d) is inapplicable because Plaintiff does not allege
that William Mitchell disclosed "computerized information about dates, coded items, and charges for medical treatment of employees and other medical billing information submitted" in relation to a current claim for workers' compensation benefits. 36. Plaintiff received the full amount of leave to which he was entitled under
the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). 37. Plaintiff is not entitled to reinstatement under the FMLA because he did not
attempt to return to work at the conclusion of his FMLA leave on September 22, 2012.
5946895v6
55
38.
The medical certifications requested by William Mitchell are job-related
and consistent with business necessity. 39. near future. 40. Some or all of Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the exclusive remedy Plaintiffs claim are, in whole or in part, moot, or may become moot in the
provisions of the Minnesota Workers Compensation Act. 41. Under Minn. Stat. 363A.33, subd. 6, Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial
on his claims alleging violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 42. Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer and plead additional
affirmative defenses as may appear appropriate as the result of discovery in this matter.
5946895v6
56
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court enter judgment dismissing Plaintiffs claims with prejudice and on the merits, and award Defendants their reasonable attorneys fees, costs and disbursements, and any such further relief as is just and equitable.
Dated: February 7, 2014
BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A.
By: s/Ann Huntrods Ann Huntrods (#132640) Michael C. Wilhelm (#0387655) 2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2157 (612) 977-8400 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ERIC JANUS, WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW, PHEBE HAUGEN, MARY GALE, AND SIMON CANICK 2
Briggs and Morgan, P.A. also represents purported Defendant Niels Schaumann, who has not been served.
5946895v6
57

Answer To First Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer To First Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 3 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 4 of 57

accommodations proposed by William Mitchell.

Nevertheless, William Mitchell

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 5 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 6 of 57

With respect to paragraph B(3), Defendants deny the allegations. To the

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 7 of 57

Defendants deny the

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 8 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 9 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 10 of 57

have any factual or legal merit.

The Defendants state that the remainder of the

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 11 of 57

conclusion to which no response is required.

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 12 of 57

information to admit or deny the allegations.

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 13 of 57

With respect to paragraph 24 and footnote 38, Defendants lack sufficient

Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations.

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 14 of 57

With respect to paragraph 32, Defendants lack sufficient information to

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 15 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 16 of 57

With respect to paragraph 45 and footnote 57, Defendants deny that

information to admit or deny the allegations.

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 17 of 57

With respect to paragraph 52, Defendants lack sufficient information to

admit or deny the allegations.

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 18 of 57

With respect to paragraph 62, Defendants admit that, in or about March of

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 19 of 57

With respect to paragraph 73, Defendants lack sufficient information to

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 20 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 21 of 57

With respect to paragraph 87, Defendants lack sufficient information to

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 22 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 23 of 57

With respect to paragraph 103, Defendants admit that Plaintiff wrote in an

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 24 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 25 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 26 of 57

With respect to paragraph 121, Defendants admit the allegations.

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 27 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 28 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 29 of 57

With respect to paragraph 138, Defendants admit that Dean Januss

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 30 of 57

With respect to paragraph 143, Defendants admit that William Mitchell

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 31 of 57

With respect to paragraph 150, Defendants deny the allegations.

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 32 of 57

letter to Plaintiff on April 5, 2012. paragraph 163. 193.

With respect to paragraph 164, Defendants deny the allegations.

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 33 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 34 of 57

Plaintiff sent a letter to Dean Janus on April 25, 2012.

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 35 of 57

CASE 0:14-cv-00349-DWF-TNL Document 15 Filed 02/07/14 Page 36 of 57