Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 132

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 132"

Melanie Gordon
5 years ago
Views:

1 Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 132 Brenda K. Baumgart, OSB No bkbaumgart@stoel.com Karen L. O Connor, OSB No kloconnor@stoel.com John B. Dudrey, OSB No jbdudrey@stoel.com STOEL RIVES LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR Telephone: (503) Facsimile: (503) Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION CAROL LYNN GILES, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated; SHAWN H. DUNLAP, an individual; CHERYL LEE FISHER, an individual; Plaintiffs, Civil No. 2:13-cv AA ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES v. ST. CHARLES HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., an Oregon corporation, doing business as PIONEER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; ST. CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER BEND; ST. CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER REDMOND; and ST. CHARLES MADRAS, Defendant. Page 1 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2 Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 7 Page ID#: 133 In response to Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant St. Charles Health System, Inc. ( St. Charles or defendant ) admits, denies and alleges as follows. 1. Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a statement of procedural facts to which no response is required. To the extent Paragraph 1 raises substantive factual allegations, St. Charles denies them. 2. St. Charles admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 3. St. Charles admits that it is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon with its principal place of business in Bend, Oregon. St. Charles further admits that it generally acts through its agents and employees. Except as expressly admitted, St. Charles denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 4. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Plaintiffs Complaint contain statements regarding jurisdiction and venue to which no response is required. To the extent Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 raise factual allegations, St. Charles denies them. 5. St. Charles admits that it is a Bend, Oregon-based health care provider that operates the four hospitals listed in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Complaint, and further states that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. s. 201 et seq ( FLSA ), under the FLSA s enterprise coverage provisions, 29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(A)-(C). Except as expressly admitted, St. Charles denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Page 2 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3 Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 7 Page ID#: St. Charles admits the allegations in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 7. St. Charles admits that plaintiff is a registered nurse, licensed by the State of Oregon, whom it has employed since St. Charles has no basis to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 and therefore denies them. 8. St. Charles admits that it paid plaintiffs on an hourly basis. Except as expressly admitted, St. Charles denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 9. In response to Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint, St. Charles states that registered nurses are required to maintain certain certifications, and that maintaining those certifications may occasionally result in some study time that is outside of normal working hours. Except as expressly admitted, St. Charles denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 10. St. Charles denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 11. St. Charles denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 12. In response to Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Complaint, St. Charles states that any and all United States Department of Labor Opinion Letters speak for themselves. Page 3 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4 Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 4 of 7 Page ID#: St. Charles admits that, on or about December 2011, plaintiff Giles filed a small claims complaint against St. Charles in Deschutes County Circuit Court, and that plaintiff Giles small claims complaint speaks for itself. Except as expressly admitted, St. Charles denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 14. In response to Paragraphs 17 and 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint, St. Charles states that, in 2012, with plaintiff Giles assistance, it developed a new policy for paying caregivers, including registered nurses, for study time associated with St. Charles-required certifications and that, thereafter, St. Charles implemented a process by which it paid its caregivers at their current overtime rates for the unpaid study time they reported. Except as expressly admitted, St. Charles denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 17 and 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 15. St. Charles denies that this action is appropriate for certification as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. 216(b). St. Charles therefore denies the allegations in Paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint. Without limiting the preceding, St. Charles specifically denies any factual allegations that relate to similarly-situated employees, similarly-situated persons, the class, class members, or the like. 16. St. Charles denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted to above. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Without assuming Plaintiffs burden of proof as to any claim or issue, St. Charles asserts the following affirmative defenses: Page 4 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5 Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 5 of 7 Page ID#: 136 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure To State A Claim) 17. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 18. Plaintiffs claims under ORS Chapter 652 and 653 are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. ORS (3). 19. Plaintiffs claims under the FLSA are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. 29 U.S.C. 255(a). 20. Plaintiff Giles filed her Complaint on January 4, 2013, more than two years after some of the events described in her Complaint occurred. The remaining plaintiffs filed their claims thereafter. 21. Some or all of the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint are therefore outside the applicable statute of limitations. Page 5 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

6 Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 6 of 7 Page ID#: 137 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure To Exhaust Contractual Remedies) 22. Some or all of the plaintiffs are members of National Labor Relations Board ( NLRB )- certified collective bargaining units. 23. As members of the bargaining units, some or all of the plaintiffs are subject to the terms of collective bargaining agreements between St. Charles and the bargaining unit employees certified representative, the Oregon Nurses Association ( ONA ). 24. The collective bargaining agreements provide generally that disputes between ONArepresented nurses and St. Charles will be resolved under the contract s grievance-resolution procedure. This dispute is covered by the collective bargaining agreements. 25. Plaintiffs did not utilize the grievance-resolution provisions prior to filing their Complaint. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss plaintiffs action because they failed to complete the grievance-resolution process. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (All Wages Paid) 26. St. Charles has paid plaintiffs all wages due and owing. Page 6 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7 Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 7 of 7 Page ID#: 138 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Labor Preemption) 27. Some or all of the plaintiffs are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. All or a portion of their claims are preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and/or Labor Management Relations Act. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure To Provide Written Notice-ORS , , ) 28. Plaintiffs failed to provide St. Charles with adequate written notice of their unpaid wages claims prior to filing suit. WHEREFORE, St. Charles prays for judgment as follows: 1. Dismissing Plaintiffs claims with prejudice; 2. Awarding St. Charles its costs, disbursements, and attorneys fees incurred in defending this action; and 3. For such other relief as deemed just and equitable. DATED: March 18, STOEL RIVES LLP s/ Brenda K. Baumgart Brenda K. Baumgart, OSB No bkbaumgart@stoel.com Karen L. O Connor, OSB No kloconnor@stoel.com John B. Dudrey, OSB No jbdudrey@stoel.com Telephone: (503) Facsimile: (503) Attorneys for Defendant Page 7 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

IF YOU WORKED FOR ST. CHARLES HOME HEALTH BETWEEN MARCH 1, 2007 AND THE PRESENT,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Dusan-Speck et al. v. St. Charles Health System, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-00358-AA NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IF YOU WORKED FOR ST. CHARLES