Case 2:15-cv CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Similar documents
Kanter v. California Administrative Office of the Courts Doc. 10 Case 3:07-cv MJJ Document 10 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 13

Case 3:15-cv RGJ-KLH Document 38 Filed 11/25/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 257 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 1:10-CV ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 3:16-cv DPJ-FKB Document 9 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 11

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEFENDANTS' VERIFIED ANSWER

Case 5:14-cv DAE Document 4 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 1:12-cv CCC Document 14 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:14-cv MRH Document 1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Case No.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/25/ :15 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2017

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

Case 2:15-cv DBP Document 26 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 20

Case 2:15-cv GW-SS Document 35 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:523

Case 2:16-cv JTM-TJJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/29/16 Page 1 of 7

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :32 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2018

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/07/ :53 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION. Case No. 3:18-CV FDW-DSC

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/08/ :26 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/08/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 168 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2018

Case 1:06-cv MSK-BNB Document 33 Filed 09/08/06 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11

PLAINTIFF AVA SMITH- THOMPSON S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT SARA LEE CORPORATION

Case 3:08-cv VRW Document 11 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231

Case 8:13-cv JSM-AEP Document 17 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/23/ :02 PM

Case 1:12-cv DJC Document 36 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

3:13-cv JFA Date Filed 04/04/13 Entry Number 4 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Case 1:13-cv AT Document 18 Filed 03/03/14 Page 1 of 8 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:14-cv CKK Document 1 Filed 08/22/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case5:02-cv JF Document3 Filed11/06/02 Page1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION. Nature Of The Action

Case 4:15-cv DPM Document 25 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 2:16-cv GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:17-cv LAP Document 88 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 25

Case 2:14-cv MPK Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 6

7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 12/02/14 Entry Number 6 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv GMS Document 25 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

10/18/ :38 AM 18CV47218 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. COMPLAINT.

2:08-cv CWH-BM Date Filed 08/29/2008 Entry Number 5 Page 1 of 8

Case Doc 19 Filed 06/01/16 Entered 06/01/16 14:19:45 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:17-cv RC Document 8 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2015

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (hereinafter FedEx Ground ), by and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/13/ :06 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2015

Case 4:10-cv TSH Document 4 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/20/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2018

Case 3:17-cv DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 4:06-cv WTM-GRS Document 116 Filed 02/04/08 Page 1 of 13

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO.: 1:15-CV LCB-LPA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:18-cv KBF Document 83 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 13

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/05/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018

Case 1:11-cv LG-JCG Document 2 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 7

case 2:14-cv PPS-JEM document 15 filed 09/21/14 page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :06 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2017

Case 3:15-cv EDL Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 16

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/05/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/05/2014

Case: 1:15-cv SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 1 of 18 PAGEID #: 284

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case 3:19-cv Document 1 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION CASE NO.: 11-CV WPD

Attorneys for Defendant SAK CONSTRUCTION, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 1:12-cv DLC Document 11 Filed 09/07/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Courthouse News Service

Case 1:16-cv LGS Document 21 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 5:12-cv LS Document 1 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil Case No.: 18-cv (WMW/SER)

Case 3:08-cv CRB Document 1 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 1

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2013 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2013

Case 1:14-cv CMA-KMT Document 1081 Filed 05/16/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 5:07-cv JF Document 19 Filed 06/04/2008 Page 1 of 11

FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :14 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2018

Case 1:14-cv CMH-TRJ Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 83

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/13/ :06 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2015

Case 1:14-cv KAM-JO Document 8 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 36

Case 1:15-cv RP Document 13 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Transcription:

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL MACDONALD Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:15-cv-06132-CMR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (hereafter UPS or Defendant ), by and through its counsel, Reed Smith, LLP, hereby answers the Complaint of Plaintiff Michael MacDonald ( Plaintiff ) and asserts its Affirmative Defenses as follows: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND STATEMENT 1. Denied in part; admitted in part. Defendant admits only that it is a corporation. All remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 1 are 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits the allegations regarding Plaintiff s name, age, date and location of employment, and job position. Defendant denies the blanket assertions that preloaders simply sort packages or, when sorting, simply sort by color. 3. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge as to Plaintiff s belief regarding where this action stems from, and therefore that allegation is All remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 3 are 4. Denied.

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 18 5. Denied in part; admitted in part. Defendant admits only that it is aware of its statutory responsibilities towards deaf employees. The remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 5 are 6. Denied. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Denied in part; admitted in part. Paragraph 7 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. Defendant admits, however, that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint. 8. Denied in part; admitted in part. Paragraph 8 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. Defendant admits, however, that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint. 9. Denied in part; admitted in part. Paragraph 9 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. Defendant admits, however, that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint. 10. Denied in part; admitted in part. Paragraph 10 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. Defendant admits, however, that venue is proper in this Court. EXHAUSTION 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. PARTIES 13. Admitted. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Plaintiff is a deaf individual currently residing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as stated in Paragraph 13. 14. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14, and therefore they are deemed - 2 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 18 15. Denied as stated. Defendant objects to the term obvious, as it is subject to a variety of interpretations. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Plaintiff has a hearing impairment. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits that it operates a facility at the Philadelphia International Airport located at 1 Hog Island Road, Philadelphia, PA. and that Plaintiff is a UPS employee working at that facility. Defendant denies the characterization that Defendant s facility is a shipping facility. FACTS 20. Admitted. 21. Denied. By way of further answer, a preloader may perform multiple functions, including, but not limited to, loading package cars, and sorting is only one of such functions. Furthermore, not all sorting functions are limited to sorting by color. 22. Admitted in part; denied in part. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Plaintiff is deaf. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to whether American Sign Language (ASL) is Mr. MacDonald s primary language or whether Mr. MacDonald can read or write English fluently, and therefore these allegations are 23. Denied in part; admitted in part. Defendant admits that Mr. MacDonald can and indeed does communicate via written notes and text messages. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 23, and therefore they are deemed - 3 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 4 of 18 24. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations in Paragraph 24, and therefore they are deemed 25. Denied. The allegation that Plaintiff is qualified constitutes a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and it is therefore Defendant admits only that Plaintiff has been performing the job of preloader with the accommodations Defendant already has been providing to him. 26. Denied as stated. Defendant admits only that Plaintiff asked for and received an ASL interpreter for his initial interview with Defendant. 27. Denied. 28. Admitted. 29. Denied as stated. Defendant admits only that Mr. MacDonald requested an ASL interpreter for his workplace training months after his initial workplace training took place. During his initial workplace training, he was provided with alternative reasonable accommodations, including closed captioned videos and written notes. Mr. MacDonald waited months to alert. Defendant that he was claiming that he did not understand this training. 30. Admitted. By way of further answer, Mr. MacDonald was provided with alternative reasonable accommodations, including closed captioned videos and written notes, during his training. Mr. MacDonald waited months to alert Defendant that he was claiming that he did not understand this training. After Plaintiff asserted this position, he was re-trained with an ASL interpreter. 31. Admitted. By way of further answer, Mr. MacDonald was provided with alternative reasonable accommodations, including closed captioned videos and written notes, during his training. Mr. MacDonald waited months to alert Defendant that he was claiming that - 4 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 5 of 18 he did not understand this training. After Plaintiff asserted this position, he was re-trained with an ASL interpreter. 32. Admitted in part; denied in part. By way of further answer, Mr. MacDonald was provided with alternative reasonable accommodations, including closed captioned videos and written notes, during his training. Mr. MacDonald waited months to alert Defendant that he was claiming that he did not understand this training. After Plaintiff asserted this position, he was re-trained with an ASL interpreter. 33. Admitted. 34. Denied. By way of further answer, Defendant waited months to request an ASL interpreter from Defendant. 35. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge as to whether Plaintiff requires an ASL interpreter to perform the daily tasks of his job, and therefore the allegations in Paragraph 35 are By way of further answer, Plaintiff has requested an ASL interpreter in a sufficient number of work situations to suggest that he cannot perform, or is unwilling to perform, the most basic duties without an ASL interpreter. 36. Denied in part; admitted in part. Defendant admits only that Plaintiff sorts packages by color. Defendant denies that Plaintiff does not need to understand English in order to perform the essential functions of his job. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 36, and therefore they are deemed 37. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 37, and therefore they are deemed 38. Denied. - 5 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 6 of 18 39. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 39 are too vague and ambiguous to permit a response. However, by way of further answer, Defendant admits that during certain employee meetings supervisors communicate with Plaintiff through short, written notes. During other meetings, Defendant has hired an ASL interpreter to translate communications for Plaintiff. 40. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 40 are too vague and ambiguous to permit a response. However, by way of further answer, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge as to Plaintiff s understanding of information communicated to him during various meetings, and therefore the allegations in Paragraph 40 are 41. Denied as stated. The allegations in Paragraph 41 are too vague and ambiguous to permit a response. However, by way of further answer, Defendant states that Plaintiff has, on occasion, asked for an ASL interpreter, and ASL interpreters have been provided to him. 42. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 42 are too vague and ambiguous to permit a response. By way of further answer, Defendant admits that there was a communication from Plaintiff s counsel in early January that ultimately led to a meeting on January 13, 2015 between Plaintiff and a UPS Human Resources manager where an ASL interpreter was present. 43. Denied. The form referenced in Paragraph 43 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is Defendant denies that Plaintiff promptly completed and returned the form to UPS. 44. Denied. The form referenced in Paragraph 44 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 45. Denied. The form referenced in Paragraph 45 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is The remaining allegations in Paragraph 45 are - 6 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 7 of 18 46. Denied. The form referenced in Paragraph 46 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 47. Denied. Plaintiff received the pamphlet during a meeting with an ASL interpreter present. By way of further answer, Defendant denies the characterization that Plaintiff needed an ASL interpreter to understand the pamphlet. 48. Denied. The form referenced in Paragraph 48 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 49. Denied. 50. Denied. 51. Denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff was not terminated in February 2015. 52. Denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff was not terminated in February 2015. 53. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge as to Plaintiff s mental state, and therefore the allegations in Paragraph 53 are 54. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge as to Plaintiff s understanding of his employment status, and therefore the allegations in Paragraph 54 are deemed 55. Denied. 56. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge as to Plaintiff s feelings, and therefore the allegations in Paragraph 56 are Defendant also specifically denies that any of its actions could have reasonably caused Plaintiff stress, anger or anxiety. 57. Denied. 58. Denied. - 7 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 8 of 18 59. Denied as stated. Defendant denies that it failed to provide an ASL interpreter. By way of further answer, Plaintiff was informed of his temporary lay-off through a face-to-face meeting, using both written communication and lip-reading. 60. Denied. The letter referenced in Paragraph 60 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 61. Denied. 62. Denied. The letter referenced in Paragraph 62 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 63. Denied. The letter referenced in Paragraph 63 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 64. Denied. The form referenced in Paragraph 64 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 65. Denied in part; admitted in part. Defendant admits only that, at Plaintiff s request, Defendant conducted another training session with Plaintiff, with an ASL interpreter present. All remaining allegations in Paragraph 65 are 66. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 66 are too vague and ambiguous to permit a response. 67. Denied. 68. Denied. The form referenced in Paragraph 68 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 69. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 69 are too vague and ambiguous to permit a response. - 8 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 9 of 18 70. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 70 are too vague and ambiguous to permit a response. 71. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 71 are too vague and ambiguous to permit a response. 72. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge as to what Plaintiff saw on an unidentified date in August 2015, and therefore the allegations in Paragraph 72 are deemed 73. Denied. 74. Denied. 75. Denied. 76. Denied. 77. Denied. 78. Denied. 79. Denied. 80. Denied. 81. Denied. 82. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Defendant has provided an ASL interpreter to Plaintiff upon request and has in place a system to alert Plaintiff to emergency situations. 83. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to Plaintiff s mental state, and therefore the allegations in Paragraph 83 are Defendant also specifically denies that it has failed to provide effective communications accommodations in the workplace. - 9 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 10 of 18 84. Denied. Paragraph 84 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 84 are 85. Denied. Paragraph 85 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. The settlement referenced in Paragraph 85 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 85 are 86. Denied. The settlement referenced in Paragraph 86 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 87. Denied. The settlement referenced in Paragraph 87 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 88. Denied. The settlement referenced in Paragraph 88 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is 89. Denied. Paragraph 89 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. The opinion referenced in Paragraph 89 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 89 are 90. Denied. The consent decree referenced in Paragraph 90 is a writing that speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 90 are 91. Admitted. - 10 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 11 of 18 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 92. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to the preceding Paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 93. Denied. Paragraph 93 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 93 are 94. Denied. Paragraph 94 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 94 are 95. Denied. Paragraph 95 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 95 are 96. Denied. Paragraph 96 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 96 are 97. Denied. Paragraph 97 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 97 are 98. Denied. Paragraph 98 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 98 are - 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 12 of 18 99. Denied. Paragraph 99 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 99 are 100. Denied. Paragraph 100 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 100 are 101. Denied as stated. Defendant objects to the term obvious, as it is subject to a variety of interpretations. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Plaintiff has a hearing impairment. 102. Denied as stated. Paragraph 102 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Plaintiff has a hearing impairment. 103. Denied as stated. Defendant objects to the term obvious, as it is subject to a variety of interpretations. Paragraph 103 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Plaintiff has a hearing impairment. 104. Denied. Paragraph 104 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 104 are 105. Denied. Paragraph 105 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 105 are - 12 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 13 of 18 106. Denied. Paragraph 106 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 106 are 107. Denied. Paragraph 107 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 107 are 108. Denied. Paragraph 108 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 108 are 109. Denied. Paragraph 109 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 109 are 110. Denied. UPS at all times has and continues to provide reasonable accommodations, including certified interpreters, in the workplace. UPS maintains a reasonable accommodations process, and employees are trained regarding same. 111. Denied. Paragraph 111 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 111 are 112. Denied. Paragraph 112 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 112 are - 13 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 14 of 18 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 113. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to the preceding Paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 114. Denied. Paragraph 114 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 114 are 115. Denied. Paragraph 115 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 115 are 116. Denied. Paragraph 116 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 116 are 117. Denied. Paragraph 117 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 117 are 118. Denied. Paragraph 118 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 118 are 119. Denied. Paragraph 119 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 119 are - 14 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 15 of 18 120. Denied. Paragraph 120 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 120 are 121. Denied. Paragraph 121 states conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations in Paragraph 121 are PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in the unnumbered WHEREFORE clause following Paragraph 121, including subparts (a) through (i), and respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint in its entirety and enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. The final paragraph also requires no response. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial. - 15 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 16 of 18 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against UPS upon which relief may be granted. SECOND DEFENSE Upon information and belief, Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by applicable statutes of limitation. THIRD DEFENSE Upon information and belief, Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based upon the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, release, waiver, and estoppel. FOURTH DEFENSE Upon information and belief, Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because all employment decisions made with regard to Plaintiff were at all times motivated by legitimate, non-discriminatory and lawful factors, and UPS at no time acted in an unlawful manner in connection with any decision regarding Plaintiff. FIFTH DEFENSE Plaintiff s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ) are barred to the extent that he is not a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 12111(8) and therefore has no standing to initiate this action and no right to any relief under the ADA. SIXTH DEFENSE Upon information and belief, Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because of undue hardship. SEVENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff s claims are barred to the extent that UPS made good faith efforts to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff. EIGHTH DEFENSE Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the fact that UPS established procedures reasonably designed, implemented, and enforced to be effective in preventing and detecting unlawful conduct such as that alleged by Plaintiff. - 16 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 17 of 18 NINTH DEFENSE Upon information and belief, Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff s failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate his claims of damages, the existence of such damages being hereby TENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff's punitive damages claims are barred because UPS did not act with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff. ELEVENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages because UPS made good faith efforts to comply with the ADA and other applicable laws. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gary M. Tocci Gary M. Tocci, Esq. Sarah T. Hansel, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8100 (215) 851-1420 (Facsimile) Email: shansel@reedsmith.com Dated: March 28, 2016 Attorneys for Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. - 17 -

Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 18 of 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 28, 2016, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint via electronic filing with the Court s ECF system for notice to all counsel of record. /s/ Sarah T. Hansel Sarah T. Hansel