876748 v.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MARTITA TOGBA : CIVIL ACTION 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

HOLCOMB BEHAVIORAL HEALTH : 

SYSTEMS : NO. 03-4892

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant, Holcomb Behavioral Health Systems (“Defendant” or “HBHS”), by 

its undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the Complaint of Plaintiff, (“Plaintiff” or “’Togba”), 

and asserts affirmative defenses thereto as follows: 

1. Admitted only that Plaintiff is an adult individual. Defendant lacks 

sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining averments of this paragraph 

and, accordingly, the remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 

2. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted only that Defendant is an 

entity engaged in business with offices located at the address indicated in this paragraph. The 

remaining averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 

3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted only that Plaintiff alleges 

violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. 

Denied that any such violations occurred or that Plaintiff’s claims are meritorious. 

4. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendant denies any 

liability to Plaintiff and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief that she requests. 

5. Admitted. 

Case 2:03-cv-04892-JCJ Document 3 Filed 10/22/03 Page 1 of 6
876748 v.1 2

6. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendant denies any 

liability to Plaintiff and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief that she requests. 

7. Admitted. 

8. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendant denies any 

liability to Plaintiff and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief that she requests. 

9. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the 

allegations of this paragraph and, accordingly, the averments of this paragraph are denied. By 

way of further response, Defendant denies any liability to Plaintiff and denies that Plaintiff is 

entitled to any of the relief that she requests. 

10. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted only that Plaintiff was fired 

on or about January 15, 2003 for commission of a serious violation relating to patient safety. 

The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 

11. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendant denies any 

liability to Plaintiff and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief that she requests. 

12. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendant denies any 

liability to Plaintiff and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief that she requests. 

13. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted only that Plaintiff filed a 

charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Defendant lacks sufficient 

Case 2:03-cv-04892-JCJ Document 3 Filed 10/22/03 Page 2 of 6
876748 v.1 3

knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph and, 

accordingly, the remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 

14. Admitted. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests judgment in its favor against Plaintiff 

dismissing all claims against it with an award of attorneys’ fees and costs of this suit. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

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

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s damages, if any, are limited by applicable federal and/or state statutes 

and case law interpreting them. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

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

limitations. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, if any. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

At all times, Defendant acted in a reasonable and lawful manner. 

Case 2:03-cv-04892-JCJ Document 3 Filed 10/22/03 Page 3 of 6
876748 v.1 4

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee at-will. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

administrative and other remedies and her failure to otherwise fulfill all of the procedural 

prerequisites for bringing this suit. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by her failure to exercise reasonable care to take 

advantage of the Defendant’s safeguards and/or her refusal to provide Defendant an opportunity 

to investigate her accusations. 

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Despite her failure to report any alleged misconduct during her employment with 

Defendant, Defendant fulfilled its legal obligation to investigate Plaintiff’s accusations and/or to 

enact immediate and appropriate corrective measures. 

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

At all times Defendant exercised reasonable care to avoid harassment and 

eliminate it if and when it might occur. 

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The Defendant did not know and could not reasonably have known of the alleged 

harassment. 

Case 2:03-cv-04892-JCJ Document 3 Filed 10/22/03 Page 4 of 6
876748 v.1 5

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests judgment in its favor against Plaintiff 

dismissing all claims against it with an award of attorneys’ fees and costs of this suit. 

 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 

 BY:_____________________________ 

 Joseph L. Turchi 

 Christine D. Steere 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 I.D. No. 65294/84046 

 The Widener Building 

 One South Penn Square 

 Philadelphia, PA 19107 

 (215) 575-4200 

Case 2:03-cv-04892-JCJ Document 3 Filed 10/22/03 Page 5 of 6
876748 v.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Answer and Affirmative 

Defenses has been served on this date by U.S. Mail, First Class, upon the following counsel of 

record: 

 

Mark S. Scheffer, Esquire 

Pomerantz & Scheffer 

7th Floor, Stephen Girard Building 

21 South 12th Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3603 

 __________________________________ 

 Joseph L. Turchi 

Date: October 22, 2003 

Case 2:03-cv-04892-JCJ Document 3 Filed 10/22/03 Page 6 of 6