FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/13/ :43 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x CYNTHIA CEBALLOS, Index No /2016 Plaintiff, CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA, INC., CANON U.S.A., INC., MANNY HERNANDEZ, and MARC MALDONADO, VERIFIED ANSWER OF MARC MALDONADO Defendants CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA, INC., Counterclaim-Plaintiff, CYNTHIA -against- -against- CEBALLOS, Counterclaim-Defendant X (" Maldonado" Defendant Marc Maldonado ("Mr. or "Defendant" "Defendant", by and through his "Complaint" attorneys, Jones Day, as and for his Verified Answer to the Verified Complaint (the "Complaint" (" Plaintiff" of plaintiff Cynthia Ceballos ("Plaintiff", denies each and every allegation in the Complaint except as explicitly admitted herein and states as follows: INTRODUCTION In response to the unnumbered introductory paragraph, Defendant admits that Plaintiff has brought a civil action seeking monetary damages, but expressly denies that Plaintiff was subjected to any discrimination, retaliation, harassment, assault, battery, intentional infliction of 1 of 14

2 emotional distress, or any other wrongful conduct and further states that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3, and therefore denies the allegations. 4. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 4, and therefore denies the allegations. PARTIES 5. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the alleged residency of Plaintiff, and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 6. Answering further, Defendant states that Canon USA has been dismissed with prejudice from this action and therefore the allegations regarding "Defendant CANON USA, INC." are irrelevant and do not require a response. 7. The allegations in Paragraph 7 are too vague to admit or deny, particularly because they do not define the temporal scope of "all times relevant herein." Answering further, (" Solutions" Defendant admits that Canon Solutions America, Inc. ("Solutions" employed four or more employees at all times while Plaintiff was employed at Solutions. 8. The allegations in Paragraph 8 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. Furthermore, the allegations in Paragraph 8 are too vague to admit or deny, particularly because they do not define the temporal scope of "all times relevant herein." To the -2-2 of 14

3 extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations. Answering further, Defendant states that Plaintiff was an employee at Solutions from in or about mid-january 2016 until in or about mid-april The allegations in Paragraph 9 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. Furthermore, the allegations in Paragraph 9 are too vague to admit or deny, particularly because they do not define the temporal scope of "all times relevant herein" nor do they identify the occasions when Defendant Hernandez allegedly "was acting within the scope of his employment." To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations, except admits that Defendant Hernandez was employed at Solutions throughout the duration of Plaintiff's employment at Solutions. 10. The allegations in Paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. Furthermore, the allegations in Paragraph 10 are too vague to admit or deny, particularly because they do not define the temporal scope of "all times relevant herein." To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations. BACKGROUND FACTS 11. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12, except admits that Solutions hired Plaintiff as a Site Representative at a copy center located in Manhattan, New York. 13. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 14, and therefore denies the allegations. 15. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 15, and therefore denies the allegations of 14

4 16. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 16, and therefore denies the allegations. 17. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 17, and therefore denies the allegations. 18. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 18, and therefore denies the allegations. 19. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 20 and therefore denies the allegations, except admits that Christine Rodriguez and Vincent Hammond were assigned to the same site as Plaintiff. 21. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 21, and therefore denies the allegations. 22. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 22 regarding Plaintiff's mental state, and therefore denies the allegations. Defendant expressly denies that Plaintiff ever suffered discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment, or that she ever was subjected to a hostile work environment during her employment at Solutions. 23. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 23, and therefore denies the allegations. 24. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 24, and therefore denies the allegations. 25. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 25, and therefore denies the allegations. 4 of 14

5 26. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 26, and therefore denies the allegations. 27. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 27, and therefore denies the allegations. 28. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 28, and therefore denies the allegations. 29. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 29, and therefore denies the allegations. 30. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 30, and therefore denies the allegations. Defendant expressly denies that Plaintiff ever suffered discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment, or that she ever was subjected to a hostile work environment during her employment at Solutions. 31. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 31, and therefore denies the allegations. 32. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 32, and therefore denies the allegations. 33. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 33, and therefore denies the allegations. 34. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 34, and therefore denies the allegations. 35. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny what Ms. Murray allegedly told Plaintiff, and therefore denies the allegations in paragraph of 14

6 36. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 36, and therefore denies the allegations. 37. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the Plaintiff" allegations regarding Plaintiff's feelings about any investigation and whether and for what purpose Solutions gave Plaintiff a mirror. Defendant expressly denies that Plaintiff suffered discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment, or that she ever was subjected to a hostile work environment during her employment at Solutions. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations regarding what, if anything, Plaintiff told Ms. Murray. Answering further, Defendant avers that the project at the copy center where Plaintiff worked ended, and other Solutions employees' employment ended. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph The allegations in Paragraph 39 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations. 40. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations regarding what, if anything, Plaintiff told Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Hammond. Defendant expressly denies that Plaintiff ever suffered discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment, or that she ever was subjected to a hostile work environment during her employment at Solutions. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 40. FIRST CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS GREEBBLATT, KATZ, AND NYFG 41. Defendant states that Plaintiff purports to assert this claim against "Defendants Greebblatt, Katz, and NYFG," none of which are defendants in this action, and that Plaintiff does not purport to assert this claim against Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed required -6-6 of 14

7 from Defendant, Defendant restates and incorporates herein by reference the paragraphs above as if stated in full herein. 42. Defendant states that Plaintiff purports to assert this claim against "Defendants Greebblatt, Katz, and NYFG," none of which are defendants in this action, and that Plaintiff does not purport to assert this claim against Defendant. Defendant further states that the allegations in Paragraph 42 constitute legal conclusions. Accordingly, no response is required from Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed required from Defendant, Defendant denies the allegations. 43. Defendant states that Plaintiff purports to assert this claim against "Defendants Greebblatt, Katz, and NYFG," none of which are defendants in this action, and that Plaintiff does not purport to assert this claim against Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed required from Defendant, Defendant denies the allegations. 44. Defendant states that Plaintiff purports to assert this claim against "Defendants Greebblatt, Katz, and NYFG," none of which are defendants in this action, and that Plaintiff does not purport to assert this claim against Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed required from Defendant, Defendant denies the allegations. SECOND CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT HERNANDEZ 45. Defendant states that Plaintiff asserts this claim solely against "Defendant Hernandez," and does not assert this claim against Defendant, and therefore no response is required from Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed required from Defendant, Defendant restates and incorporates herein by reference the paragraphs above as if stated in full herein. 46. Defendant states that Plaintiff asserts this claim solely against "Defendant Hernandez," and does not assert this claim against Defendant. Defendant further states that the -7-7 of 14

8 allegations in Paragraph 46 constitute legal conclusions. Accordingly, no response is required from Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed required from Defendant, Defendant denies the allegations. 47. Defendant states that Plaintiff asserts this claim solely against "Defendant Hernandez," and does not assert this claim against Defendant, and therefore no response is required from Defendant. Defendant further states that Paragraph 47 is vague and ambiguous, as it alleges that "Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff," but this claim is asserted against a single defendant: Hernandez. To the extent a response is deemed required from Defendant, Defendant denies the allegations. 48. Defendant states that Plaintiff asserts the claim in Paragraph 48 solely against "Defendant CANON," and does not assert this claim against Defendant, and therefore no response is required from Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed required from Defendant, Defendant denies the allegations. 49. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 49. THIRD CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS HERNANDEZ AND MALDONADO 50. Defendant incorporates and restates his responses to the allegations contained in paragraph 1-49 as if fully set forth herein. 51. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph Defendant states that Plaintiff asserts this claim solely against "Defendant Hernandez," and does not assert this claim against Defendant, and therefore no response is required from Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed required from Defendant, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph of 14

9 54. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 54. FOURTH CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS HERNANDEZ AND MALDONADO 55. Defendant incorporates and restates his responses to the allegations contained in paragraph 1-54 as if fully set forth herein. 56. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 59. FIFTH CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS HERNANDEZ AND MALDONADO 60. Defendant incorporates and restates his responses to the allegations contained in paragraph 1-59 as if fully set forth herein. 61. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 64. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 65. Plaintiff's jury demand requires no response from Defendant. PRAYER FOR RELIEF In response to the allegations in Paragraphs 1-9 â in the Prayer for Relief, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in the Complaint or any relief whatsoever. GENERAL DENIAL Defendant denies all allegations not specifically and expressly admitted herein of 14

10 ADDITIONAL S Defendant alleges and asserts the following defenses (in addition to those stated above, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses deemed affirmative defenses by law In addition to the defenses asserted below, Defendant specifically reserves all rights to assert any other or additional defenses that are now or may become available or appear during, or as a result of, discovery, other proceedings, or further investigation. FIRST Plaintiff's Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to allege facts sufficient to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted. SECOND All actions taken by Defendant were without bias, discriminatory or retaliatory motive, ill will, or malice. THIRD Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by applicable statutes of limitations. FOURTH Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by various equitable doctrines, including without limitation the doctrines of estoppel, laches, unclean hands, and/or waiver. FIFTH To the extent any of the acts or omissions alleged by Plaintiff actually occurred, Plaintiff authorized, consented to, and/or ratified said acts or omissions. SIXTH Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of appropriate opportunities to prevent, mitigate, accommodate, and/or correct any damages, harmful conduct, problems, or complaints of 14

11 SEVENTH Defendant is entitled to an offset for any monies received by Plaintiff from any source in compensation for alleged economic damages and non-economic damages, the existence of which is expressly denied, because Plaintiff is not entitled to double recovery. EIGHT Defendant denies any involvement in any unlawful actions, retaliation, or discrimination towards Plaintiff, but in any event, regardless of any action or inaction by Defendant, the actions and decisions affecting Plaintiff would have been the same. NINTH Any damage, loss, or injury by Plaintiff, the existence of which is expressly denied, was not caused by or attributable to Defendant. TENTH Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. ELEVENTH Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or preempted by the provisions of other controlling laws. TWELFTH As a separate and alternative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant alleges the Plaintiff has taken no action to mitigate her damages as to any alleged lost wages, earnings and/or other benefits. THIRTEENTH As a separate and alternative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant alleges the claims contained in the Complaint may be barred by any or all of the affirmative defenses of 14

12 contemplated by New York Civil Practice Law The extent to which any claims are barred by one or more of said alternative defenses not specifically set out above cannot be determined until Defendant has had an opportunity to complete discovery. Defendant, therefore, incorporates all such defenses as if fully set forth herein, and reserves the right to amend its list of defenses through the time of trial. FOURTEENTH As a separate and alternative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant alleges that, based upon the facts alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages. Respectfully submitted, Dated: New York, New York JONES DAY February 13, 2018 By: s/ Joseph W Hammell Joseph W. Hammell 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4950 Minneapolis, Minnesota Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( jhammell@jonesday.com R. Yoffe 250 Vesey Street New York, NY Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( iyoffe@jonesday.com Attorneys for Defendant Canon Solutions America, Inc., Manolin Hernandez, and Marc Maldonado of 14

13 VERIFICATION OF ANSWER Ilana R. Yoffe, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York, affirms as follows under the penalty of perjury: I am associated with the firm of Jones Day, attorneys for defendant Marc Maldonado in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing Verified Answer and know the contents thereof. The same is true upon information and belief. I make this verification because Mr. Maldonado is not located within the county where I maintain my office. Dated: New York, New York February 13, 2018 Ilana R. Yoffe of 14

14 AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE R. Yoffe, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, affirms under penalty of perjury pursuant to Rule 2106 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, that on February 13, 2018, she served a true and correct copy of the annexed Verified Answer of Marc Maldonado by delivering a true copy via UPS overnight on the following counsel and by filing an electronic copy on the Electronic Filing System for the Supreme Court of New York State, New York County: Chaya Gourarie, Esq. Jon Lewis Norinsberg, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY ( Respectfully submitted, Dated: New York, New York JONES DAY February 13, 2018 By: R. Yoffe 250 Vesey St et New York, NY Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( iyoffe@jonesday.com Attorney for Defendants Canon Solutions America, Inc., Manolin Hernandez, and Marc Maldonado of 14