IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARBARA A. DWYER, :

:

Plaintiff :

: Civil Action No. 02-CV-4353

v. :

:

ITEQ-INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. :

:

Defendant :

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant ITEQ-Integrated Technologies, Inc., by and through its

undersigned attorneys, hereby provides its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

1. The averments of paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint do not

require a response and are, in any event, denied.

2. Denied as a conclusion of law.

3. Denied.

4. Admitted.

5. It is admitted that Defendant is ITEQ – Integrated Technologies,

Inc., a business corporation whose headquarters is 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite

500, Silver Spring, MD 20910. It is denied that Defendant regularly conducts

business in this district.

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 14 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 1 of 6
6. Denied, save that it is admitted that defendant had fifteen or more

employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in

every calendar year since at least 1999.

7. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to whether Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination, No. 170A200226,

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on November 9,

2001, alleging discrimination based on sex, and more specifically, pregnancy,

and accordingly denies the averments of paragraph 7 of the Amended

Complaint.

 8. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to whether the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to the claimant on

April 5, 2002, and accordingly denies this averment and the remaining averments

of paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint.

9. Admitted.

10. Denied.

11. It is denied that Defendant “allowed” Plaintiff to maintain her

residence in this district while she worked in Virginia. It is admitted prior to March

1, 2001 that the Defendant reimbursed her expenses for travel to and from a job

location in Virginia.

12. Denied.

13. Denied.

14. Denied.

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 14 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 2 of 6
15. Denied, save that it is admitted that in 2001, Mr. Rollison met with

Plaintiff in his office.

16. Denied, save that it is admitted that in 2001, Mr. Rollison informed

Plaintiff that she had the option of being terminated or becoming a part-time on

call employee working for $50.00 per hour and that he informed her that there

was work available during March or April 2001, on a project for the Internal

Revenue Service. 

17. Denied, save that it is admitted that Plaintiff worked on a part-time

basis in March and April 2001 in New York and Massachusetts. 

18. Denied.

19. Denied.

20. Denied.

21. Denied.

22. Denied.

23. Denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court dismiss this case with

prejudice.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 14 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 3 of 6
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part, by her failure to mitigate

damages.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff has no entitlement to punitive damages. Defendant’s actions

were not outrageous, willful, wanton or undertaken with reckless disregard and/or

indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant had legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons for its

actions.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, or in part, for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust internal and/or administrative remedies or procedures.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, or in part, by applicable statutes of

limitations.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive and/or

corrective opportunities provided by Defendant and/or to otherwise avoid harm.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant exercised prompt reasonable care to prevent the alleged

discrimination.

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 14 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 4 of 6
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or estopped in whole, or in part, because

of Plaintiff’s own action, inaction, and/or conduct.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Venue is not appropriate in this district.

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court dismiss this case with

prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: ____________ ____________________________

Daniel J. Brennan, Esquire

Attorney I.D. No. 68923

Mariellen Bello, Esquire

Attorney I.D. No. 60375

 McAleese, McGoldrick, Susanin 

 & Widman, P.C.

 Suite 240 – Executive Terrace

 455 S. Gulph Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

 (610) 337-4510

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 14 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mariellen Bello, hereby state that I served copies of the foregoing

Answers and Affirmative Defenses upon counsel of record on March __, 2003, by

placing same in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

William T. Wilson, Esquire

MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

17 West Miner Street

P.O. Box 660

West Chester, PA 19381-0660

Attorney for Plaintiff

_______________________

Mariellen Bello

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 14 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 6 of 6