128074 v2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

BARBARA J. STENGER, : 

 Plaintiff, 

 : Civil Action No. 02-4158 

 v. 

 : 

ACTION DUPLICATION, INC., 

 Defendant. : 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND NOW, comes Defendant Action Duplication, Inc. and files its Answer 

to the Complaint in this matter filed by Plaintiff Barbara J. Stenger. Defendant 

answers the specific allegations of the Complaint as follows: 

 1. Admitted. 

 2. Admitted. 

 3. Denied as stated; it is admitted that the Complaint purports to raise 

claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 

(“Title VII”), as well as the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). 

 4. Admitted. 

 5. Denied as stated. It is admitted that the court has jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s claim arising under Title VII. It is denied that “[d]amages in the within 

case are in excess of the federal jurisdictional limit[,]” inasmuch as there is no 

such limit. 

 6. Denied as stated. It is denied that all of the “actions upon which 

Plaintiff’s cause of action are based” took place in West Conshohocken. It is 

admitted that venue is proper in this Court. 

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 5 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 8
128074 v1 2

 7. Admitted. 

 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Plaintiff was 

hired a controller; it is admitted that a business card was later prepared for her 

with a title as “accounting manager.” 

 9. Denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth of the averment in this paragraph. 

 10. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Plaintiff advised Defendant 

that she was pregnant sometime during 2000; Defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to whether so advised Defendant on May 

21, 2000. It is admitted that Plaintiff informed Defendant that she wished to 

return to employment after returning from maternity leave. It is specifically 

denied that Defendant, or any of its agents, “assured or made any guarantees” to 

the Plaintiff as pled that she would be reinstated after her maternity leave “to the 

same position as accounting manager” or that she would “work the same hours, 

that is from six o’clock a.m. to two o’clock p.m.” 

 11. Admitted that Plaintiff ceased working on September 25, 2000 and 

that she provided documentation from a physician. 

 12. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Plaintiff presented Defendant 

with a written proposal for a contractual agreement concerning her maternity 

leave and her conditions of employment upon the conclusion of that leave; that 

proposal was rejected by Defendant, which granted Plaintiff maternity leave in 

accordance with the policy set forth in its employee manual. 

 13. Admitted. 

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 5 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 2 of 8
128074 v1 3

 14. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Plaintiff contacted Defendant, 

both before and after giving birth, with respect to the expiration of her maternity 

leave and the date she would be expected to return to work, as well as her hours 

of work and working conditions. 

 15. It is admitted that Defendant advised Plaintiff in September 2000 

that she was expected to return to work on January 8, 2001. Defendant is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

averment that “Plaintiff was led to believe that the terms and conditions of her 

employment, including hours and job title, would remain the same after her 

return,” and thus this allegation is denied. 

 16. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Plaintiff, in a letter dated 

January 4, 2001, which was not received by Defendant until January 10, 2001, 

asserted that she found the January 8th return date unacceptable, and proposed 

a “tentative” return date of January 29, 2001. It is specifically denied that 

Defendant ever agreed upon any return date other than January 8, 2001. 

 17. Denied. Defendant’s employee manual is a document which 

speaks for itself. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding what Plaintiff “believed.” The 

remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. 

 18. Admitted. 

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

belief as to the truth of the averment that “Exhibit A was at variance with 

Plaintiff’s understanding as to the employee’s representations” inasmuch as 

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 5 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 3 of 8
128074 v1 4

Defendant has no knowledge of Plaintiff’s “understanding.” The remaining 

allegations refer to a document which speaks for itself and, thus, are denied. 

 20. Denied as stated. It is denied that Plaintiff wrote to Defendant “on 

or about January 3, 2001” or that Plaintiff sent to Defendant the correspondence 

which is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. Rather, Plaintiff sent Defendant 

a letter, dated January 4, 2001, which is substantially similar to the letter 

reproduced as Exhibit B. Defendant did not receive that correspondence until 

January 10, 2001. As to the contents of the letter, it speaks for itself. 

 21. Denied. This allegation refers to a document which speaks for 

itself. 

 22. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Plaintiff sent Defendant the 

correspondence dated January 17, 2001, which is attached to the Complaint as 

Exhibit D, and speaks for itself. 

 23. It is denied that Plaintiff received Defendant’s correspondence of 

January 10, 2001 (referred-to in the Complaint as Exhibit C) on January 10, 

2001; rather, that correspondence was received by Plaintiff some time thereafter. 

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

belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph as to whether Plaintiff 

was prepared. It is specifically denied that there was any foreclosure. See 

Exhibit A. 

 25. Denied. 

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 5 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 4 of 8
128074 v1 5

 26. It is admitted that Plaintiff’s pay, had she chosen to return from 

maternity leave, would have remained unchanged, and that her work area would 

not have been in a private office. The remaining allegations are denied. 

 27. Denied. 

 28. Denied. 

 29. Denied. 

 30. Denied. 

 31. Admitted. 

 32. Admitted. 

 33. Defendant’s responses at paragraphs 1-32 are hereby incorporated 

by reference. 

 34. This paragraph contains no factual averments to which responsive 

pleading is required. To the extent that responsive pleading is deemed 

necessary, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to receive any damages or 

other relief from Defendant. 

 35. Admitted. 

 36. Denied. 

 37. Denied as stated. It is admitted that the Pennsylvania Human 

Relations Commission issued a determination on April 3, 2002 finding that “the 

Complaint should be dismissed because the facts of the case do not establish 

that probable cause exists to credit the allegations of unlawful discrimination.” 

 38. It is denied that “[c]onciliation in this matter has failed” inasmuch as 

no conciliation ever took place; it is admitted that more than one year has 

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 5 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 5 of 8
128074 v1 6

elapsed since the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint with the Pennsylvania Human 

Relations Commission. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. Plaintiff is not entitled to any monetary relief inasmuch as she 

effectively resigned from employment with Defendant when she willfully failed 

and refused to work at the conclusion of her maternity leave, and the alleged 

changes to her working conditions were insufficient to constitute a constructive 

discharge as a matter of law. 

 2. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support a claim of 

pregnancy discrimination as a matter of law. 

 3. Plaintiff is not entitled to seek punitive damages from Defendant 

under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act as a matter of law. 

 4. Upon the facts alleged, Plaintiff is not entitled to seek punitive 

damages from Defendant under Title VII. 

 5. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages or, alternatively, is 

barred from seeking monetary damages for back pay and front pay due to 

voluntary removal from the labor market. 

 6. At all times, Defendant acted reasonably towards Plaintiff and 

without unlawful discriminatory intent. 

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

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 5 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 6 of 8
128074 v1 7

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered 

in its favor and against Plaintiff, and that Defendant is awarded its costs of 

defending this action, including attorneys’ fees. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 FLAMM, BOROFF & BACINE, P.C. 

 By:__________________________ 

 STEVEN KAPUSTIN 

 Attorney I.D. No. 17981 

 J. BRYAN TUK 

 Attorney I.D. No. 85718 

 925 Harvest Drive, Suite 220 

 Blue Bell, PA 19422 

 Counsel for Defendant 

 Action Duplication, Inc. 

Dated: September 5, 2002 

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 5 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 7 of 8
128074 v1 8

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 5 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 8 of 8