UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

December 5, 2007

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: Jeffers et al v. Russell County Board of Education et al 

Case Number: 3:06-cv-00685-WKW

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to correct the PDF

document previously attached by E-Filer to include the E-signatures on the pleading and

certificate of service.

The correct PDF documents of the Motion and the Exhibit A are attached to this notice for

your review. Reference is made to document #28 filed on December 4, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BARBARA M. JEFFERS and ) 

JOAN M. CRAIG, ) 

) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06 CV 685 CSC 

) 

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF ) 

EDUCATION and CHARLES NACRELLI, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER

 Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (FRCP), the Defendant 

Russell County Board of Education (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) respectfully requests 

leave of the Court to refine and restate the affirmative defenses set forth in its Answer filed on 

August 30, 2006, and in support thereof says as follows: 

 1. The affirmative defenses set forth by this Defendant are in substance the 

affirmative defenses provided in the cases of Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 

(1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). Specifically the Board’s 

Thirteenth Defense complies with the statement in those two cases that the employer exercised 

reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexual harassing behavior. And the Board’s 

Seventh Defense sets forth the fact that the Plaintiffs did not take advantage of any preventive or 

corrective opportunities available to them. However, out of an abundance of caution and in an 

effort to prevent the Board from being unjustly harmed for possibly incorrectly having set forth 

these defenses, the Board respectfully requests that it be allowed to amend its Answer to set forth 

the following affirmative defenses in the exact language used by the United States Supreme 

Court in Ellerth and Faragher. 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-2 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 1 of 3
 2. The Board requests the Court’s leave to amend its Answer by adding the 

following: 

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 

 The Board exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually 

harassing behavior alleged by the Plaintiffs to have been perpetrated by the Defendant Nacrelli. 

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 

 The Plaintiffs, Jeffers and Craig unreasonable failed to take advantage of any preventive 

or corrective opportunities provided by the Board or to avoid harm otherwise. 

 3. Rule 15 of the FRCP as amended effective December 1, 2007, provide that “the 

Court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” “There must be a substantial reason to 

deny a motion to amend.” Laurie v. Ala. Ct. of Crim. App. 256 F3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001).

It is respectfully submitted that justice requires that the Board be allowed to amend its previously 

filed Answer by adding the Fifteenth Defense and Sixteenth Defense to preclude any claim that 

Defendants have not properly raised these two defenses in its previously filed answer. 

 4. Rule 8 (c) of the FRCP as Amended effective December 1, 2007, does not list the 

Faragher and Ellerth as Affirmative Defenses that must be plead. 

 5. Pursuant to Local Rule 15.1 the proposed Amended Answer is attached hereto as 

Exhibit A. 

 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-2 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 2 of 3
WHEREFORE, the Board respectfully requests that this honorable Court grant it leave to 

amend its previously filed Answer by including the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Affirmative Defenses 

set forth herein. 

This the 4th day of December, 2007. 

 SMITH & SMITH 

 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

 BY: /s/ Sydney S. Smith 

 Sydney S. Smith 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Russell County Board of Education 

 1503 Broad Street 

 Phenix City, Alabama 36867 

 (334) 298-2679 

 ASB-4248-582S 

 SSmith4843@aol.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that I have filed today, December 4, 2007, by CM/ECF, the 

above and foregoing with copies being served upon: 

 W. Don Eddins, Esq. 

 doneddins@charter.net

 Matthew C. William, Esq. 

 matt@esw-law.com 

 /s/Sydney S. Smith 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-2 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BARBARA M. JEFFERS and ) 

JOAN M. CRAIG, ) 

) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06 CV 685 CSC 

) 

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF ) 

EDUCATION and CHARLES NACRELLI, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

AMENDED ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

 COMES NOW the above-named Defendant, Russell County Board of Education, 

to answer the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, to deny the allegations of sexual harassment and 

assault and battery and vicarious liability and to set forth its defenses: 

FIRST DEFENSE

Responding to the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint in order, this Defendant 

states: 

I. JURISDICTION

 1. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court 

pursuant to cited authority but denies that the Complaint states a cause of action over 

which this Court possesses jurisdiction. 

 2. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court 

pursuant to cited authority but denies that the Complaint states a cause of action over 

which this Court possesses jurisdiction. 

 3. Denied. 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-3 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 1 of 9
II. PARTIES

 4. Defendant admits that the Plaintiff Jeffers is a female, but is without knowledge 

or information to form a belief as to her current residency and status as a citizen of the 

United States of America. Defendant admits that Plaintiff has been employed by 

Defendant as a counselor and that she is tenured. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was a 

victim of discriminatory treatment on her job 

 5. Defendant admits that the Plaintiff Craig is a female, but is without knowledge 

or information to form a belief as to her current residency and status as a citizen of the 

United States of America. Defendant admits that Plaintiff has been employed by 

Defendant as a support employee and that she is tenured. Defendant denies that Plaintiff 

was a victim of discriminatory treatment on her job 

 6. Defendant admits the allegations of the first 2 sentences. Defendant is without 

information or knowledge as to whether the alleged events occurred in Russell County. 

 7. Defendant denies that Charles Nacrelli was a supervisor at all times material to 

this Complaint. Defendant admits that Defendant Charles Nacrelli is male; that he was 

principal of Ladonia Elementary School for a period of time; and that while he was 

principal he was a supervisor of Plaintiff Jeffers. Defendant denies that Plaintiff Craig 

was supervised by Mr. Nacrelli. Mrs. Craig was supervised by the Transportation 

Supervisor, John Rudd. 

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

 8. Defendant admits that Plaintiff Jeffers has performed satisfactorily in her job 

as school counselor, but denies the use of the term “stellar.” 

 9. Defendant admits that Mr. Nacrelli was Plaintiff’s supervisor while serving as 

Principal, but denies that he was her supervisor while serving as assistant principal. 

10. Denied. 

11. Denied. 

12. Denied. 

 13. Denied 

 14. Denied. 

 15. Denied. 

16. Denied. 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-3 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 2 of 9
17. Denied. 

18. Denied. 

19. Denied. 

 20. Defendant denies that Plaintiff had previously reported the alleged sexual 

harassment. Defendant admits that Plaintiff Jeffers met with Dr. Lee on September 20, 

2005, and reported, for the first time, her allegations of sexual harassment. 

 21. Defendant admits that Dr. Lee met with Mrs. Jeffers on September 20, 2005, 

and that Dr. Lee promised to investigate Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendant denies the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 21. 

22. Admitted. 

23. Denied. 

24. Denied. 

25. Denied. 

26. Denied. 

27. Denied. 

28. Denied. 

29. Denied. 

30. Denied. 

31. Denied. 

32. Denied. 

33. Denied. 

34. Denied. 

35. Denied. 

36. Denied. 

37. Denied. 

38. Denied. 

39. Denied. 

40. Denied. 

41. Denied. 

42. Denied. 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-3 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 3 of 9
 IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE – TITLE VII HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT, SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF 

PLAINTIFF JEFFERS

43. Defendant has otherwise responded to these allegations. 

44. Denied. 

45. Denied 

46. Denied. 

47. Denied. 

48. Denied. 

49. Denied. 

50. Denied. 

COUNT TWO – TITLE VII TANGIBLE ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF PLAINTIFF 

JEFFERS

51. Defendant has otherwise responded to these allegations. 

52. Admitted. 

53. Denied. 

54. Denied. 

55. Denied. 

56. Denied. 

57. Denied. 

COUNT THREE – TITLE VII HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT, SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF 

PLAINTIFF CRAIG

 58. Defendant has otherwise responded to these allegations 

 59. Admitted. 

 60. Denied. 

 61. Denied. 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-3 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 4 of 9
 62. Denied. 

 63. Denied. 

 64. Denied. 

 65. Denied. 

 66. Denied. 

COUNT FOUR – TITLE VII TANGIBLE ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF 

PLAINTIFF CRAIG

67. Defendant has otherwise responded to these allegations. 

68. Admitted. 

69. Denied. 

70. Denied. 

71. Denied. 

72. Denied. 

73. Denied. 

COUNT FIVE – ASSAULT & BATTERY/VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST PLAINTIFF 

JEFFERS

74. Defendant has otherwise responded to these allegations. 

75. Admitted. 

76. Denied. 

77. Denied. 

78. Denied. 

79. Denied. 

COUNT SIX – ASSAULT & BATTERY/VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST PLAINTIFF 

CRAIG

80. Defendant has otherwise responded to these allegations. 

81. Admitted. 

82. Denied. 

83. Denied. 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-3 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 5 of 9
84. Denied. 

85. Denied. 

 COUNTS SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE AND TEN

Counts Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten consisting of paragraphs 86 through 108 are 

alleged solely against the Defendant, Charles Nacrelli, and do not require a response from this 

Defendant. To the extent that any of these allegations should be construed to be against this 

Defendant, those allegations are denied. 

 V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 Defendant denies the Prayer for Relief set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 

 SECOND DEFENSE 

Defendant denies the material allegations of the Complaint; and in particular, 

Defendant denies that it guilty of the allegations by Plaintiffs as to sexual harassment, assault and 

battery and vicarious liability or that Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional or other legal 

rights in any form or fashion. 

Defendants deny that Plaintiffs through their Complaint alleges facts which would 

entitle them to relief. 

 THIRD DEFENSE 

The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or 

causes of action against this Defendant. 

 

 FOURTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, or for any other federal or state, statutory or constitutional basis because the 

Plaintiffs were not subjected to the allegations made in their complaint. 

 

 FIFTH DEFENSE 

 Counts One, Two, Three and Four are barred insofar as the alleged 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-3 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 6 of 9
unlawful conduct occurred over 180 before the filing of a complaint or charge of 

discrimination by the Plaintiffs with the EEOC. 

. 

                                                               SIXTH DEFENSE

 Plaintiffs failed to present all of the allegations set forth in the Complaint to the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, and therefore, have failed to exhaust their administrative 

remedies as required by law and are precluded from raising such new and unrelated issues for the 

first time in this action. 

                                                         SEVENTH DEFENSE 

 Plaintiffs have and continue to have the ability and opportunity to mitigate the damages 

alleged, and they have failed to mitigate their damages. Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages as 

claimed. 

 EIGHTH DEFENSE 

Defendant pleads the defense of absolute, sovereign immunity in defense of both 

the federal law and state law claims of Plaintiffs. 

 NINTH DEFENSE 

 Defendant denies any and all averments set forth in the Complaint that are not 

specifically admitted and demand strict proof thereof. 

 TENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ requests for punitive damages are barred by the due process 

clauses of the United States Constitution and amendments thereto. 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-3 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 7 of 9
 ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

 Counts Five and Six are barred by the statute of limitations set forth in the 

Code of Alabama, federal law or any other applicable statute of limitations. 

 TWELFTH DEFENSE 

 The Court lacks jurisdiction over Counts Five and Six for assault and 

 battery/vicarious liability under Alabama law and over any other claims for 

personal injuries pleaded in the Complaint because the Alabama State Board of 

Adjustment affords the exclusive remedy for the alleged injuries. 

 THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 

 Defendant is not liable for any damages resulting from the alleged sexual 

harassment of the Plaintiffs by Defendant because Defendant took immediate and 

effective remedial action upon being notified by Plaintiffs of the alleged 

harassment. 

 FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 

 Defendant is not liable for any damages resulting from the alleged sexual 

harassment of the Plaintiffs because neither Plaintiff suffered any adverse tangible 

job action. 

 FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 

 The Board exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually 

harassing behavior alleged by the Plaintiffs to have been perpetrated by the Defendant Nacrelli. 

 SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 

 The Plaintiffs, Jeffers and Craig failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective 

opportunities provided by the Board or to avoid harm otherwise. 

 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-3 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 8 of 9
 WHEREFORE, having answered each allegation of the Complaint; denying all 

averments of sexual harassment; assault and battery; vicarious liability or violation of 

constitutional or other legal rights of the Plaintiffs; and having responded to each allegation of 

the Complaint, and having asserted affirmation defenses thereto, this Defendant respectfully 

requests that judgment be entered in its favor and that Plaintiffs take nothing by this complaint, 

and that Defendant have judgment for its cost of suit and reasonable attorney fees and any other 

further relief as this Court may deem proper. 

This the 4th day of December, 2007. 

 SMITH & SMITH, P.C. 

 /s/ Sydney S. Smith 

 Attorney for Russell County Board of 

 Education 

 1503 Broad Street 

 Phenix City, Alabama 36867 

 (334) 298-2679 

 ASB-4248-T82S 

 Ssmith4843@aol.com 

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that I have filed today, December 4, 2007, by CM/ECF, the above and 

foregoing with copies being served upon: 

 W. Don Eddins, Esq. 

 doneddins@charter.net

 Matthew C. William, Esq. 

 matt@esw-law.com 

 

 /s/ Sydney S. Smith 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 29-3 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 9 of 9