IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

Grady Clifford Smith,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action No.:

Hyundai Motor Manufacturing 2:06-cv-745-WKW-CSC

Alabama, LLC,

Defendant.

_____________________________

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, HYUNDAI MOTOR

MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC

COMES NOW Defendant, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC (hereinafter

“HMMA” or “Defendant”), and responds as follows to the Complaint of Grady Clifford Smith,

(hereinafter “Smith” or “Plaintiff”).

1. In response to paragraph 1 of the Complaint, HMMA admits that Plaintiff asserts claims

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and that they invoke jurisdiction of this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(4). While HMMA does not contest this Court’sjurisdiction

over Plaintiff’s claims, HMMA denies that Plaintiff has standing or is entitled to any relief or

damages for them.

2. In response to paragraph 2 of the Complaint, HMMA denies that Plaintiff is a qualified

individual with a disability. Asto the remainder of the paragraph, HMMA declinesto take a position

on a legal issue.

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 9
PARTIES

3. In response to paragraph 3 of the Complaint, HMMA admitsthat Plaintiff is a male citizen

of the United States, but is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief concerning

Smith’s current legal residence, and therefore, such allegations are denied. HMMA admits that

during the July 2005, time period, Plaintiff was in the process of applying for a Maintenance Team

member position.

4. In response to paragraph 4 of the Complaint, HMMA admits the allegations contained

therein.

PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. In response to paragraph 5 of the Complaint, HMMA adopts and incorporates herein by

reference its responses to paragraphs 1- 4 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

6. In response to paragraph 6 of the Complaint, HMMA admitsthat Plaintiff wasinvolved in

the application processin July 2005, and that he was applying for a position in Maintenance pending

the outcome of all tests in the HMMA application process. All other allegations made in this

paragraph are denied.

7. In response to paragraph 7 of the Complaint, HMMA denies that Plaintiff performs the

same or similar duties at his current employer compared to those performed by maintenance

personnel at HMMA’s Montgomery facility. HMMA states it is without sufficient information or

knowledge to form a belief as to how or when Plaintiff lost his right hand or as to what job duties

Plaintiff performed for the last fourteen years. Accordingly, HMMA denies the allegations of this

paragraph.

8. In response to paragraph 8 of the Complaint, HMMA admits that Plaintiff was sent for a

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 9
post-offer medical examination and submitted to the Hanoun physical test in order to measure

whether he had the physical capabilitiesrequired to perform the essential functions of a Maintenance

Team member. HMMA denies the remainder of the allegations in the paragraph.

9. In response to paragraph 9 of the Complaint, HMMA admits that Plaintiff was given an

offer of employment contingent upon the results of his drug screen, background check, medical

examination the Hanoun test and the Hyundai Maintenance Assessment Test..

10. In response to paragraph 10, HMMA admitsthat itsent Plaintiff a letter thanking him for

his participation in the application process and informing him that hisscores did not qualify him for

consideration for placement. HMMA denies the remainder of the allegations in the paragraph.

11. In response to paragraph 11, HMMA admits that Plaintiff contacted its personnel after

receipt of the letter and that a member of its personnel agreed to look into the physical test performed

at HealthSouth. HMMA denies the remaining allegations in the paragraph.

12. In response to paragraph 12, HMMA admitsthat Plaintiff contacted its personnel again,

but denies the remaining allegations in the paragraph.

13. In response to paragraph 13, Defendant denies the allegations contained therein.

COUNT I

14. In response to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, HMMA adopts and incorporates herein by

reference its responses to paragraphs 1-13 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

15. In response to paragraph 15, of the Complaint, HMMA denies the allegations contained

therein.

16. In response to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, HMMA denies the allegations contained

therein.

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 3 of 9
17. In response to paragraph 17 of the Complaint, HMMA denies the allegations contained

therein.

18. In response to paragraph 18 of the Complaint, HMMA denies the allegations contained

therein.

19. In response to paragraph 19 of the Complaint, HMMA denies the allegations contained

therein.

20. In response to incorrectly numbered paragraph 17, HMMA denies the allegations

contained therein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In response to Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief (a-c), HMMA denies that Plaintiff is entitled to

any of the relief requested, or to any other form of legal or equitable relief. To the extent the

allegations contained in this paragraph can be construed as containing allegations of fact, Defendant

denies the same.

IN FURTHER ANSWER to Plaintiff’s Complaint, HMMA assertsthe following affirmative

and other defenses:

FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted under the ADA.

SECOND DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches or the applicable

period of limitations.

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiff has failed to timely satisfy the conditions precedent to suit under the ADA.

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 4 of 9
FOURTH DEFENSE

To the extent Plaintiff is complaining about events that are not within the scope of a valid

charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, his claim under the ADA is

barred.

FIFTH DEFENSE

All employment decisions concerning Plaintiff were made in good faith and based upon

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Even if Plaintiff was able to establish that the impermissible factor of disability entered into

any decision concerning Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant would show that the same decision

would have been made in the absence of any such impermissible factor.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

To the extent that Plaintiff provesthat he had been the victim of intentional discrimination by

virtue of adverse employment actions within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m), Defendant will

show that it would have taken the same adverse actions regardless and, therefore, it is entitled to the

limitations on relief set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B).

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which punitive damages may be imposed.

NINTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.

TENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is unable to prove any set of facts which would justify the imposition of punitive

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 5 of 9
damages under the ADA.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendant claims any applicable limitations on compensatory and punitive damagesimposed

by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a or otherwise on the discrimination claims under the ADA.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Defendant did not act willfully or maliciously, and therefore an award of punitive damagesis

not appropriate.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, he ought not recover them because, on

their face and/or as applied, punitive damages violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Punitive damages are not available because the actions alleged in the Complaint were

contrary to Defendant’s stated and published policies and its good faith efforts to comply with the

laws.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claims arising under the ADA before this Court.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

The challenged employment actions were taken in good faith for good cause.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

To the extent Plaintiff has taken a position in another forum that is inconsistent with their

position in this forum, his claims are barred by collateral estoppel, issue preclusion and any other

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 6 of 9
applicable equitable defenses.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s alleged medical conditions do not constitute actual or perceived disabilities under

the ADA, either with or without mitigating measures.

NINETEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA.

TWENTIETH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not a “qualified individual with a disability” as required to maintain this action

under the ADA.

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

Even if Plaintiff were a person with a disability, there are no reasonable accommodations

available to allow him to perform the essential functions of the job for which he applied.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

	
no obligation to accommodate a perceived disability.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

Defendant’s application tests for placement are job-related and consistent with business

necessity, and such performance cannot be accomplished by reasonable accommodation.

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendant’sstandardsfor performance are job-related and consistent with business necessity,

and such performance cannot be accomplished by reasonable accommodation.

TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendant reserves the right to raise the defense of "after-acquired evidence.”

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 7 of 9
TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory damages because any emotional distress or mental

anguish he may have suffered was caused by occurrences other than conduct for which Defendant is

liable as a matter of law.

TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendant reservesthe right to assert that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief because he has

unclean hands.

TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant respectfully

requests that the Plaintiff’s complaint be forthwith dismissed and Defendant awarded fees and

expenses incurred in the defense of this frivolous and vexatious action.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Sandra B. Reiss

J. Trent Scofield (ASB-1191-e67j)

Sandra B. Reiss (ASB-3650-s80s)

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

One Federal Place, Suite 1000

1819 5

th Avenue North

Birmingham, AL 35203-2118

Telephone: (205) 328-1900

Facsimile: (205) 328-6000

E-mail: Trent.Scofield@odnss.com

E-mail: Sandra.Reiss@odnss.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 11

th

day of September, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing

Answer with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such

filing to the following: Cynthia Forman Wilkinson, Esq.

s/ Sandra B. Reiss

J. Trent Scofield (ASB-1191-e67j)

Sandra B. Reiss (ASB-3650-s80s)

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

One Federal Place, Suite 1000

1819 5

th Avenue North

Birmingham, AL 35203-2118

Telephone: (205) 328-1900

Facsimile: (205) 328-6000

E-mail: Trent.Scofield@odnss.com

E-mail: Sandra.Reiss@odnss.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

4302876.1

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 9 of 9