Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Transcription

1 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS KAREN GAUEN, Ed.D., v. Plaintiff, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HIGHLAND COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5, Defendant. No. 3:16-CV DEFENDANT S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT Defendant, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HIGHLAND COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5 ( Board or District, by its attorneys, Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP, submits its Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint: Introduction ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports to bring an action for alleged pay discrimination on the basis of sex, but otherwise denies the allegations contained in the introductory paragraph to the 1. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C and 1343, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f(3 (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended and 42 U.S.C. 206(d (Equal Pay Act. The facts underlying the federal claims also give rise to claims under state law, 820 ILCS 112 (Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003 over which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction. 1

2 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #20 ANSWER: To the extent Plaintiff can maintain this action, which Defendant denies, Defendant admits that this Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f(3 (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; and 29 U.S.C. 206(d (Equal Pay Act Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the 2. Venue is proper. ANSWER: To the extent that Plaintiff can maintain this action, which Defendant denies, Defendant admits that venue is proper in this Court. 3. Plaintiff Karen Gauen, Ed.D. (hereafter Dr. Gauen is a citizen of the State of Illinois who has been continuously employed by defendant School Board of the Highland Community Unit School District No. 5 since ANSWER: Upon information and belief, Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the 4. Defendant School Board of the Highland Community Unit School District No. 5 (hereafter Highland is a political subdivision of the State of Illinois located in Madison County, Illinois, possesses all the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes and in that name may sue and be sued, and is an employer within the meaning of Title VII, the EPA and the Illinois EPA. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the 5. Dr. Gauen has satisfied all conditions precedent to this lawsuit in that: a. she timely filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 19, 2015, and b. filed this lawsuit within 90 days of her receipt of the Equal Employment 2

3 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #21 Opportunity Commission December 11, 2015 Notice of Right to Sue. ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC on August 19, Defendant further admits that the instant lawsuit was filed within 90 days of Plaintiff s receipt of her EEOC Notice of Right to Sue on December 11, Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the 6. Dr. Gauen has at all times performed her duties and responsibilities in a competent manner. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 the 7. During Dr. Gauen s entire tenure with Highland since 1993, she has been employed at the secondary level, and has been employed at the high school for at least the last eighteen years. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the 8. In the school year , Highland promoted Dr. Gauen to Assistant Principal of the high school. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the 9. In the school year , Highland promoted Dr. Gauen to Principal of the high school. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the 10. Throughout Dr. Gauen s tenure as Assistant Principal and Principal of the high school, Highland has paid her less than men Highland employed as Assistant Principal and Principal of the high school. 3

4 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #22 ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the 11. Highland s conduct in setting Dr. Gauen s pay lower than men was based in part on her sex. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the 12. Plaintiff Dr. Gauen was the only administrator in the Highland District to have earned National Board Certification at the time Highland promoted her to Assistant Principal. ANSWER: Upon information and belief, Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Answering further, Defendant avers upon information and belief that Plaintiff earned National Board Certification in English in 2004 while she was employed by the District as a teacher, and Plaintiff received $1, per year from the District while employed both as a teacher and as an administrator for said certification. 13. At the time Highland promoted her to Assistant Principal, Dr. Gauen had already earned two Masters Degrees and a Doctorate in Educational Administration. ANSWER: Upon information and belief, Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Answering further, Defendant avers upon information and belief that Plaintiff earned a Masters Degree in Education Administration in 1981, a Masters Degree in Music in 1998, and a Doctorate in Educational Administration (Ed.D in Dr. Gauen was the only administrator with a Doctorate in Educational Administration until 2015, when another administrator earned that educational distinction. ANSWER: Upon information and belief, Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the 4

5 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 5 of 21 Page ID # At all relevant times, Highland has had no merit pay plan, no seniority pay plan, nor any published pay guidelines or standards in use for setting or changing pay for its administrators. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, insofar as the District does not have a published pay formula. Answering further, Defendant avers that it is the District s practice to establish administrator pay based upon, among other things, years of administrative experience. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Assistant Principal 16. Highland published the vacancy for the position of Assistant Principal in 2012, along with the qualifications for the position. Dr. Gauen applied for the job in accordance with the published announcements. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained within Paragraph 16 of the 17. The vacancy announcement for the Assistant Principal position sought a person with experience in education/administration, and did not specify any particular number of years, nor any preference for experience in one or the other. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 17 of the 18. When Defendant Highland promoted Plaintiff Dr. Gauen from a teaching position to Assistant Principal in the school year, it lowered her daily pay. Before her promotion, as a teacher in , Highland paid her $77, in base annual pay for a 180 day contract ($ per day. After promoting her to Assistant Principal, 5

6 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #24 Highland paid her a base annual salary of $79, for a 260 day contract ($ per day. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff s Complaint, insofar as it correctly identifies Plaintiff s annual base salary for the school year. Answering further, Defendant avers that Plaintiff mischaracterizes her annual base salary as Assistant Principal where she fails to take into account Teachers Retirement System ( TRS benefits, health insurance benefits, and compensation for her National Board Certification. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff s 19. On information and belief, before it promoted Dr. Gauen to Assistant Principal, Highland did not lower the daily pay of any man it promoted from teacher to an administrative position as Assistant Principal. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff s 20. Highland paid Plaintiff Dr. Gauen less as Assistant Principal than it paid the two men who were Assistant Principals at the high school before her promotion. Neither of these men has two Masters Degrees, a Doctorate in Educational Administration, or National Board Certification. Dr. Gauen has more experience in education than both these male administrators. ANSWER: Defendant admits that as an entry level administrator with zero years of administrative experience, the District paid Plaintiff less in her first year as an administrator than the District paid her predecessors in that position, Barry Thomas and Steve Lanxon, during their 26th and 17th year of administrative 6

7 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #25 experience, respectively. Answering further, Defendant avers that the District paid Plaintiff substantially more as a first-year administrator than it paid Thomas and Lanxon during their first year as administrators. Answering further, both Thomas and Lanxon possessed Masters Degrees in Education Administration. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff s 21. Defendant Highland promoted Plaintiff from Assistant Principal to Principal the following year, , and hired a man, Christopher Becker, to fill the Assistant Principal position she vacated. Highland paid Mr. Becker $11, per year more in base pay than it had paid Dr. Gauen in base pay to do the same Assistant Principal job Dr. Gauen had just vacated. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 21 of the Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Answering further, Defendant avers that Christopher Becker relocated to the District and had 8 more years of administrative experience than Plaintiff when he replaced her as Assistant Principal, compared to Plaintiff s zero years of administrative experience when she was hired as Assistant Principal. 22. Mr. Becker did not have a Doctorate in Educational Administration, nor did he have National Board Certification, nor did he hold two Masters Degrees. He had fewer years of experience in education than Dr. Gauen. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 22 of the Answering further, Defendant avers that 7

8 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #26 Christopher Becker does have a Masters Degree in Education Administration. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the 23. Defendant Highland promoted teacher Caleb Houchins to Assistant Principal for the school year, and moved him from a 180 day contract at an annual base salary of $55,400 ($ per day to a 260 day contract at an annual base pay of $70,000 ($ per day. His increase in base pay was $14,600, or more than 26.3% gross increase in annual base pay. Defendant Highland promoted teacher Dr. Gauen to Assistant Principal for the , and moved her from a 180 day contract at $77, base pay to a 260 day contract as Assistant Principal at $79, base pay, an increase of $1,114.28, or a 1.4% gross increase in base pay annually. ANSWER: Defendant admits that Caleb Houchins was promoted to Assistant Principal for the school year. Answering further, Defendant avers that Caleb Houchins also contemporaneously served as Athletic Director for the District during the school year. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 23 of the 24. Superintendent Sutton told Mr. Houchins, in Dr. Gauen s presence that his new salary was just about his daily rate of pay as a teacher, and then turned to Dr. Gauen and said Of course, I can t do that for everyone. Highland treated Dr. Gauen differently and less well than Houchins, a male who had fewer years teaching experience, fewer and lower educational achievements, no National Board Certification and an as-yet incomplete administrative Degree. If Highland had given Dr. Gauen the same treatment it gave Mr. Houchins when it promoted him to Assistant Principal, that is, an increase of 26.3% in 8

9 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #27 base pay, her base salary would have increased from $77, to $98,369.66, rather than the $79,000 Highland paid her. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the 25. After promoting him to Assistant Principal, Highland paid Mr. Houchins a base daily rate of $269.23, which was $35.55 (12.5% less than the base daily rate it paid him as a teacher ($ After promoting her to Assistant Principal, Highland paid Dr. Gauen a base daily rate of $303.85, which was $ (29.8% less than it paid her as a teacher ($ ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Principal 26. Highland published the vacancy for the position of Principal in 2013, along with the qualifications for the position. Dr. Gauen applied for the job in accordance with the published announcements. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the 27. The vacancy announcement for the Principal position listed the qualifications sought as follows: Proven record of dynamic educational leadership, including excellent interpersonal and communication skills with students, staff and parents Knowledge of curriculum and instruction Successful teaching/administrative background Ability to be part of an effective management team 9

10 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #28 Strong knowledge of school facilities management Ability to produce an effective school climate Ability to face the challenges caused by growing enrollment ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 27 of the 28. The announcement specified that salary is Competitive with area administrative salaries and experience. Multi-year contract may be offered. Highland Community School District residency required. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the 29. Highland did not interview Dr. Gauen for the Principal vacancy. Highland interviewed the other candidates, all male. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the 30. The Highland High School Faculty Council recommended Dr. Gauen for promotion, and thereafter, Highland promoted her from Assistant Principal to Principal. ANSWER: Defendant admits that the Council recommended Christopher Becker as the most qualified external candidate, and following discussion with Superintendent Sutton, it was ultimately recommended that Dr. Gauen, an internal candidate, be promoted. Answering further Mr. Sutton adopted the Council s recommendation and recommended to the Board that Plaintiff be promoted to the Principal position. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the 31. Another candidate for Principal was Christopher Becker, an applicant from outside the district. The Faculty Council did not recommend him for the Principal position. Highland did not hire Becker as Principal, but instead promoted Dr. Gauen. 10

11 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #29 ANSWER: Defendant admits that Christopher Becker was an applicant from outside the District and a candidate for the Principal position. Defendant admits that Plaintiff, not Christopher Becker, was hired as Principal. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 31 of the 32. Highland, by Superintendent Michael Sutton, hired Mr. Becker as Assistant Principal without posting the job or allowing other qualified candidates to apply and interview. ANSWER: Defendant admits that for purposes of filling Plaintiff s Assistant Principal job after deciding to promote her to Principal it drew from the pool of other qualified candidates that had applied and interviewed for the Principal job, including Mr. Becker, who the District ultimately hired as Assistant Principal. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the 33. On information and belief, Mr. Sutton told Mr. Becker that he will become high school Principal when Dr. Gauen retires. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the 34. Dr. Gauen was the first woman ever to hold the position of Principal at the high school. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the 35. Defendant Highland paid the male Principal Dr. Gauen replaced, Derek Hacke, a base salary of at least $25, per year more than it paid her to do the same job. Mr. Hacke had 17 fewer years of education experience than Dr. Gauen. He did not have two Masters Degrees, National Board Certification or a Doctorate in Educational Administration. 11

12 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #30 ANSWER: Defendant admits that Derek Hacke, Plaintiff s predecessor in the Principal role, had twelve (12 more years of administrative experience than Plaintiff, and, as a result, was paid more in 2013 as Principal than Plaintiff was paid in 2014 when she was hired as Principal with one (1 year of administrative experience. Defendant also admits that Mr. Hacke does not have a National Board Certification or a Doctorate in Educational Administration. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Answering further, Defendant avers that Derek Hacke holds a Masters degree in Science Education and a Masters of Science degree in Educational Administration. 36. Defendant Highland has also paid Dr. Gauen less as Principal at the high school than it pays men who hold lower level and less responsible jobs, including as Assistant Principal. In , Highland hired one of Dr. Gauen s Assistant Principals, Mr. Becker, and paid him a base salary of $90, per year, while it paid Dr. Gauen a base salary of $89, a year. ANSWER: Defendant admits that for the school year, the District paid Christopher Becker an annual salary of $90,000 per year as Assistant Principal. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36 of the 37. Mr. Becker is one of two Assistant Principals at the high school, both reporting directly to Dr. Gauen and supervised directly by Dr. Gauen at all relevant times. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the 38. Mr. Becker s Assistant Principal position has less responsibility than Dr. Gauen s Principal position. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the 12

13 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 13 of 21 Page ID # Mr. Becker s Assistant Principal position requires less effort than Dr. Gauen s Principal position. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the 40. Mr. Becker s Assistant Principal position requires less skill than Dr. Gauen s Principal position. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the 41. Mr. Becker has fewer years of education experience than Dr. Gauen. ANSWER: Defendant admits that Mr. Becker has fewer years of teaching experience than Plaintiff. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of the Defendant expressly denies any implication that Plaintiff had more years of relevant education experience than Mr. Becker for an administrative role as Mr. Becker had eight (8 years of administrative experience compared with Plaintiff s one (1 year of administrative experience. 42. Mr. Becker does not have a Doctorate in Education Administration, does not have National Board Certification and does not have two Masters Degrees. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Answering further, Defendant avers that Christopher Becker does have a Masters Degree in Education Administration and is currently working towards his Doctorate in Education Administration. 43. Defendant Highland s practice, until Plaintiff Dr. Gauen became high school Principal, was to pay the high school Principal (a position that had been held only by males more than the Assistant Superintendent and more than the Principals of the middle and 13

14 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #32 elementary schools. Highland did not follow its past practice when it promoted Dr. Gauen, the first woman ever to hold the high school Principal position. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the 44. Assistant Superintendent Derek Hacke, in a discussion with Dr. Gauen about her salary, said that high school principals usually earn more than Assistant Superintendents, and are often the second highest paid administrator in the district, below the Superintendent. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the 45. Superintendent Michael Sutton told Dr. Gauen that he knew that Mr. Becker, when given the high school Principal job after Dr. Gauen retires, would not work as Principal for what Highland is paying Dr. Gauen. He told Dr. Gauen that he would be able to pay Mr. Becker more to be Principal than he pays Dr. Gauen. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the 46. Defendant Highland offered the male Principal who preceded Dr. Gauen, Derek Hacke, a multi-year contract. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the 47. Defendant Highland offered Dr. Gauen s male Assistant Principal, Mr. Becker, a multiyear contract. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 47 of 48. Defendant Highland did not offer Dr. Gauen a multi-year contract either as Assistant Principal or Principal. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 48 of 49. Dr. Gauen has repeatedly sought to address the pay inequities she alleges herein with 14

15 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #33 Defendant s Superintendent, Michael Sutton. She told Mr. Sutton that Highland was paying her $89,000 per year base pay as Principal but paying her male Assistant, Chris Becker, $90,000 per year base pay and that this was not fair. Mr. Sutton told her she could take it or leave it. ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff sought additional compensation in 2014 after she had been hired as Principal, insofar as she sent correspondence to Superintendent Sutton on one occasion prior to the filing of discrimination charges with the EEOC. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 49 of the 50. Dr. Gauen returned to Mr. Sutton with her pay concerns, and attempted to provide him with a spreadsheet of pay information. The spreadsheet showed both the pay of Principals and Assistant Principals in other nearby Illinois school districts, and the pay of the men in the job before her. It showed that the male Assistant Principal at the high school, Steve Lanxon, was paid $94,570 in base pay, $23,000 less than the male Principal, Derek Hacke, even though Mr. Lanxon had five more years of experience than Mr. Hacke. Mr. Sutton told her he was not interested. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the 51. Dr. Gauen returned to Mr. Sutton again in October, 2014, and provided him with a letter she wrote about her pay concerns. Mr. Sutton told her he would not disagree with her statements in her letter, but that I told you before. Take it or leave it. He also said that if she did not want it, she did not have to do the job. 15

16 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #34 ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff provided Superintendent Sutton with a letter in October of 2014 seeking additional compensation. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 51 of the 52. Under Mr. Sutton as Superintendent, Highland has selected only three women as administrators: Dr. Gauen, Ms. Cindy Tolbert, an elementary school Principal, and Ms. Pam Tyler, the District s Director of Special Education. Highland pays Tolbert less than any other principal and less than any other assistant principal in the district. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, insofar as the District has hired three (3 women as administrators since the time Michael Sutton became Superintendent in Answering further, Defendant avers that since becoming Superintendent, Michael Sutton has hired an equal number of women (3 and men (3 as administrators. Defendant admits that Cindy Tolbert s annual salary is less than any other administrator, and affirmatively avers that Cindy Tolbert is the Principal at Alhambra Primary School and Grantfork Elementary, both of which have substantially lower enrollment rates than any of the other school buildings within the District. 53. When Dr. Gauen complained to Mr. Sutton that he was paying her newly-hired male assistant more than he was paying her, Superintendent Sutton told her it would do her no good to try to convince him to adjust her salary. He said that Ms. Tyler had recently complained she was paid less than every other Special Education Director in the region, and he wouldn t change her salary either. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the 16

17 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 17 of 21 Page ID # Highland cut the daily base pay of the two female teachers it promoted to administrative positions (Assistant Principal and Elementary Principal, Dr. Gauen and Ms. Tolbert, by a greater percent than it cut the daily base rate of pay of the male it promoted to the administrative position of Assistant Principal, Caleb Houchins. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the 55. Highland s conduct has caused and will continue to cause Dr. Gauen to lose pay and other benefits of employment, including retirement benefits. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the 56. Defendant's conduct has caused Plaintiff to experience humiliation, upset, embarrassment, non-diagnosed emotional distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life. ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 56 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 57. Defendant's conduct was undertaken knowingly, willfully, maliciously or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff's protected rights. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the COUNT I Title VII 58. Plaintiff Dr. Gauen incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraph ANSWER: Defendants incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs Defendant is an employer within the meaning of Title VII. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the 17

18 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 18 of 21 Page ID # Defendant's conduct constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the COUNT II Equal Pay Act ( EPA 61. Plaintiff Dr. Gauen incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraph ANSWER: Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs Defendant Highland is an employer and enterprise within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the 63. The positions Plaintiff Dr. Gauen and males held as Assistant Principal and Principal at the high school are performed in the same facility, under the same or similar working conditions and the work of each position requires the same skill, effort and responsibility. ANSWER: Defendant admits the positions Plaintiff and her male colleagues held as Assistant Principal and Principal at the high school were performed in the same facility. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 63 of the 64. Defendant s conduct in paying Dr. Gauen less than men as Assistant Principal and Principal violates the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 of Plaintiff s 65. Defendant s conduct is and was willful. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 65 of Plaintiff s 18

19 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #37 COUNT III Illinois Equal Pay Act of Plaintiff Dr. Gauen incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraph ANSWER: Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs Defendant Highland is an employer within the meaning of the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003, 820 ILCS 112/5. ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 67 of Plaintiff s 68. Defendant s conduct in paying Dr. Gauen less than men as Assistant Principal and Principal is a violation of the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003, 820 ILCS 112. ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 68 of Plaintiff s 69. This action is brought within 5 years from the date of the underpayments alleged herein as required by the 820 ILCS 112/30(a. ANSWER: Paragraph 69 of Plaintiff s Complaint states a legal conclusion, to which no answer is required. PRAYER FOR RELIEF As for the unnumbered prayer for relief immediately following paragraph 69 of the Complaint, no response is required. Should a response be deemed required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in this unnumbered prayer for relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For and as its Affirmative Defenses, Defendant states as follows: 19

20 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #38 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff s complained-of pay differential is based on factors other than sex, and is free from discriminatory animus. 29 U.S.C. 206(d(1; 820 ILCS 112/10(a(4. Specifically, it is the District s practice to determine and establish administrator salaries based upon, among other things, a candidate s prior administrative experience and seniority in the position. The District s salary determinations based on objective factors other than gender are applied equally across the sexes. See Exhibit 1 to Defendant s Answer and Affirmative Defenses (attached. Plaintiff s claim of gender-based pay discrimination must therefore fail. WHEREFORE, Defendant, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HIGHLAND COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5, denies that it discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of sex and prays for judgment in its favor. Stephanie E. Jones, ARDC # Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP 3030 Salt Creek Lane, Suite 202 Arlington Heights, IL ( ( (Fax sjones@hlerk.com Respectfully Submitted, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HIGHLAND COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5 By: /s/ Stephanie E. Jones One of the Attorneys for Defendant _4 20

21 Case 3:16-cv DRH-PMF Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Stephanie E. Jones, an attorney, certifies that on April 26, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff s Complaint was electronically filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, via its CM/ECF System and was electronically served to each person listed below: Donna L. Harper Sedey Harper Westhoff, P.C Clifton Avenue St. Louis, MO ( ( (fax dharper@sedeyharper.com Stephanie E. Jones, ARDC # Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP 3030 Salt Creek Lane, Suite 202 Arlington Heights, IL ( ( (Fax sjones@hlerk.com By: /s/ Stephanie E. Jones One of the Attorneys for Defendant 21